The  Truth  About  Jesui 


M.  M.  MANGASARIAM 


''■■'^.^.'■■.■,tr^-il>--yA' <'■'-'' 


«.  3S2.420 


The  Truth  About  Jesus 

Is  He  a  Myth? 

ILLUSTRATED 

;p^ 

Af.  M.  Mangasarian 


Woman  Oraeifled.    In  the  Ohurch  of  St.  Etienne,  France. 
For  a  Long  Time  Tbis  Bearded  Woman  Was  Supposed  to  be  tbe 

Obrist. 

Independent  Religious  Society 

ORCHESTRA  HALL 

CHICAGO 


//  it  is  not  historically  true  that 
such  and  such  things  happened 
in  Palestine  eighteen  centuries 
ago,  what  becomes  of  Christian- 
ityf  — Thomas  Huxley. 


COPTRIQHT  1909 


CONTENTS 


PART  I 

A  Parable 7 

In  Confidence ^9 

Is  Jesus  a  Myth  ? 25 

The  Problem  Stated 34 

The  Christian  Documents 57 

Virgin  Births °9 

The  Origin  of  the  Cross 7^ 

Silence  of  Contemporary  Writers 85 

The  Story  of  Jesus  a  Religious  Drama 93 

The  Jesus  of  Paul  Not  the  Jesus  of  the 

Gospels    ^  ^^ 

Is  Christianity  Real? 138 

PART  II 
Is  the  World  Indebted  to  Christianity?.  . .   156 
Paganism  and  Christianity,  or  Christian- 
ity Not  Suited  to  Western  Races 191 

PART  III 

Some  Modern  Opinions  of  Jesus 214 

A  Rhetorical  Jesus 233 

"We  Owe  Everything  to  Jesus" 241 

A  Liberal  Jew  Praises  Jesus 252 

Appendix— Replies  to  Clerical  Critics  270 


By  education  most  have  been  misled, 
So  they  believe  because  they  were  so  bred; 
The  priest  continues  what  the  nurse  began, 
And  thus  the  child  imposes  on  the  man. 

Dryden. 


Preface 

The  following  work  offers  in  book  form 
the  series  of  studies  on  the  question  of  the 
historicity  of  Jesus,  presented  from  time  to 
time  before  the  Independent  Religious  So- 
ciety in  Orchestra  Hall.  No  effort  has  been 
made  to  change  the  manner  of  the  spoken, 
into  the  more  regular  form  of  the  written, 
word. 

M.  M.  Mangasarian. 


Orchestra  Hall 

CHICAGO 


Picture  in  Herculaneum,  of  the  Days  of  Pompeii,  Showing  Cupid 
Crowned  with  a  Cross. 


PART  I. 


A  PARABLE 

I  am  today  twenty-five  hundred  years  old. 
I  have  been  dead  for  nearly  as  many  years. 
My  place  of  birth  was  Athens;  my  grave 
was  not  far  from  those  of  Xenophon  and 
Plato,  within  view  of  the  white  glory  of 
Athens  and  the  shimmering  waters  of  the 
Aegean  sea. 

After  sleeping  in  my  grave  for  many  cen- 
turies I  awoke  suddenly — I  cannot  tell  how 
nor  why — and  was  transported  by  a  force 
beyond  my  control  to  this  new  day  and  this 
new  city.  I  arrived  here  at  daybreak,  when 
the  sky  was  still  dull  and  drowsy.  As  I  ap- 
proached the  city  I  heard  bells  ringing,  and 
a  little  later  I  found  the  streets  astir  with 
throngs  of  well  dressed  people  in  family 
groups  wending  their  way  hither  and  thither. 
Evidently  they  were  not  going  to  work,  for 
they  were  accompanied  by  their  children  in 
their  best  clothes,  and  a  pleasant  expression 
was  upon  their  faces. 

"This  must  be  a  day  of  festival  and  wor- 


8  The  Truth  About  Jesus 


ship,  devoted  to  one  of  their  gods,"  I  mur- 
mured to  myself. 

Looking  about  me  I  saw  a  gentleman  in 
a  neat  black  dress,  smiling,  and  his  hand 
extended  to  me  with  great  cordiality.  He 
must  have  realized  I  was  a  stranger  and 
wished  to  tender  his  hospitality  to  me.  I 
accepted  it  gratefully.  I  clasped  his  hand. 
He  j)ressed  mine.  We  gazed  for  a  moment 
silently  into  each  other's  eyes.  He  under- 
stood my  bewilderment  amid  my  novel  sur- 
roundings, and  offered  to  enlighten  me.  He 
explained  to  me  the  ringing  of  the  bells  and 
the  meaning  of  the  holiday  crowds  moving 
in  the  streets.  It  was  Sunday — Sunday  be- 
fore Christmas,  and  the  people  were  going 
to  "the  House  of  God." 

"Of  course  you  are  going  there,  too,"  I 
said  to  my  friendly  guide. 

"Yes,"  he  answered,  "I  conduct  the  wor- 
ship.   I  am  a  priest." 

"A  priest  of  Apollo?"  I  interrogated. 

"No,  no,"  he  replied,  raising  his  hand  to 
command  silence,  "Apollo  is  not  a  god;  he 
was  only  an  idol." 

"An  idol?"  I  whispered,  taken  by  sur- 
prise. 

"I  perceive  you  are  a  Greek,"  he  said  to 


A  Parable  9 

me,  "and  the  Greeks,"  he  continued,  "not- 
withstanding their  distinguished  accomplish- 
ments, were  an  idolatrous  people.  They  wor- 
shipped gods  that  did  not  exist.  They  built 
temples  to  divinities  which  were  merely  emp- 
ty names — empty  names,"  he  repeated. 
"Apollo  and  Athene — and  the  entire  Olym- 
pian lot  were  no  more  than  inventions  of 
the  fancy." 

"But  the  Greeks  loved  their  gods,"  I  pro- 
tested, my  heart  clamoring  in  my  breast. 

"They  were  not  gods,  they  were  idols,  and 
the  difference  between  a  god  and  an  idol  is 
this:  an  idol  is  a  thing;  God  is  a  living 
being.  When  you  cannot  prove  the  exist- 
ence of  your  god,  when  you  have  never  seen 
him,  nor  heard  his  voice,  nor  touched  him — 
when  you  have  nothing  provable  about  him, 
he  is  an  idol.  Have  you  seen  Apollo  ?  Have 
you  heard  him?    Have  you  touched  him?" 

"No,"  I  said,  in  a  low  voice. 

"Do  you  know  of  any  one  who  has?" 

I  had  to  admit  that  I  did  not. 

"He  was  an  idol,  then,  and  not  a  god." 

"But  many  of  us  Greeks,"  I  said,  "have 
felt  Apollo  in  our  hearts  and  have  been  in- 
spired by  him." 

"You  imagine  you  have,"   returned  my 


10  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

guide.  "If  he  were  really  divine  he  would 
be  living  to  this  day." 

"Is  he,  then,  dead?"  I  asked. 

"He  never  lived;  and  for  the  last  two 
thousand  years  or  more  his  temple  has  been 
a  heap  of  ruins." 

I  wept  to  hear  that  Apollo,  the  god  of 
light  and  music,  was  no  more — that  his  fair 
temple  had  fallen  into  ruins  and  the  fire 
upon  his  altar  had  been  extinguished;  then, 
wiping  a  tear  from  my  eyes,  I  said,  "Oh, 
but  our  gods  were  fair  and  beautiful;  our 
religion  was  rich  and  picturesque.  It 
made  the  Greeks  a  nation  of  poets,  orators, 
artists,  warriors,  thinkers.  It  made  Athens 
a  city  of  light;  it  created  the  beautiful,  the 
true,  the  good — yes,  our  religion  was  di- 
vine." 

"It  had  only  one  fault,"  interrupted  my 
guide. 

"What  was  that?"  I  inquired,  without 
knowing  what  his  answer  would  be. 

"It  was  not  true." 

"But  I  still  believe  in  Apollo,"  I  ex- 
claimed; "he  is  not  dead,  I  know  he  is  alive." 

"Prove  it,"  he  said  to  me;  then,  pausing 
for  a  moment,  "if  you  produce  him,"  he 
said,  "we  shall  all  fall  down  and  worship 


A  Parable  11 

him.     Produce  Apollo  and  he  shall  be  our 
god." 

"Produce  him!"  I  whispered  to  myself. 
"What  blasphemy!"  Then,  taking  heart,  1 
told  my  guide  how  more  than  once  I  had 
felt  Apollo's  radiant  presence  in  my  heart, 
and  told  him  of  the  immortal  lines  of  Ho- 
mer concerning  the  divine  Apollo.  "Do 
you  doubt  Homer?"  I  said  to  him;  "Ho- 
mer, the  inspired  bard?  Homer,  whose  ink- 
well was  as  big  as  the  sea;  whose  imperish- 
able page  was  Time?  Homer,  -whose  every 
word  was  a  drop  of  light?"  Then  I  pro- 
ceeded to  quote  from  Homer's  Iliad,  the 
Greek  Bible,  worshipped  by  all  the  Hel- 
lenes as  the  rarest  JNIanuscript  between 
heaven  and  earth.  I  quoted  his  description 
of  Apollo,  than  whose  lyre  nothing  is  more 
musical,  than  whose  speech  even  honey  is 
not  sweeter.  I  recited  how  his  mother  went 
from  town  to  town  to  select  a  worthy  place 
to  give  birth  to  the  young  god,  son  of  Zeus, 
the  Supreme  Being,  and  how  he  was  born 
and  cradled  amid  the  ministrations  of  all 
the  goddesses,  who  bathed  him  in  the  run- 
ning stream  and  fed  him  with  nectar  and 
ambrosia  from  Olympus.  Then  I  recited 
the  lines  wliich  picture  Apollo  bursting  his 


12  The  Truth  About  Jesua 

bands,  leaping  forth  from  his  cradle,  and 
spreading  his  wings  like  a  swan,  soaring 
sunward,  declaring  that  he  had  come  to 
announce  to  mortals  the  will  of  God.  "Is 
it  possible,"  I  asked,  "that  all  this  is  pure 
fabrication,  a  fantasy  of  the  brain,  as  un- 
substantial as  the  air?  No,  no,  Apollo  is 
not  an  idol.  He  is  a  god,  and  the  son  of 
a  god.  The  whole  Greek  world  will  bear 
me  witness  that  I  am  telling  the  truth." 
Then  I  looked  at  my  guide  to  see  what  im- 
pression this  outburst  of  sincere  enthusiasm 
had  produced  upon  him,  and  I  saw  a  cold 
smile  upon  his  lips  that  cut  me  to  the  heart. 
It  seemed  as  if  he  wished  to  say  to  me, 
"You  poor  deluded  pagan  I  You  are  not 
intelligent  enough  to  know  that  Homer 
was  only  a  mortal  after  all,  and  that  he 
was  writing  a  play  in  which  he  manufac- 
tured the  gods  of  whom  he  sang — that  these 
gods  existed  only  in  his  imagination,  and 
that  today  they  are  as  dead  as  is  their  in- 
ventor^the  poet." 

By  this  time  we  stood  at  the  entrance  of 
a  large  edifice  which  my  guide  said  was 
"the  House  of  God."  As  we  walked  in  I 
saw  innumerable  little  lights  blinking  and 
winking    all    over    the    spacious    interior. 


A  Parable  13 

There  were,  besides,  pictures,  altars  and 
images  all  around  me.  The  air  was  heavy 
with  incense;  a  number  of  men  in  gorgeous 
vestments  were  passing  to  and  fro,  bowing 
and  kneeling  before  the  various  lights  and 
images.  The  audience  was  upon  its  knees 
enveloped  in  silence — a  silence  so  solemn 
that  it  awed  me.  Observing  my  anxiety  to 
understand  the  meaning  of  all  this,  my 
guide  took  me  aside  and  in  a  whisper  told 
me  that  the  people  were  celebrating  the 
anniversary  of  the  birthday  of  their  beauti- 
ful Savior — Jesus,  the  Son  of  God. 

"So  was  Apollo  the  son  of  God,"  I  re- 
plied, thinking  perhaps  that  after  all  we 
might  find  ourselves  in  agreement  with  one 
another. 

"Forget  Apollo,"  he  said,  with  a  sugges- 
tion of  severity  in  his  voice.  "There  is  no 
such  person.  He  was  only  an  idol.  If  you 
were  to  search  for  Apollo  in  all  the  uni- 
verse you  would  never  find  any  one  answer- 
ing to  his  name  or  description.  Jesus,"  he 
resumed,  "is  the  Son  of  God.  He  came  to 
our  earth  and  was  born  of  a  virgin." 

Again  I  was  tempted  to  tell  my  guide  that 
that  was  how  Apollo  became  incarnate;  but 
I  restrained  myself. 


14  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

"Then  Jesus  grew  up  to  be  a  man,"  con- 
tinued my  guide,  "performing  unheard-of 
wonders,  such  as  treading  the  seas,  giving 
sight,  hearing  and  speech  to  the  bHnd,  the 
deaf  and  the  dumb,  converting  water  into 
wine,  feeding  the  multitudes  miraculously, 
predicting  coming  events  and  resurrecting 
the  dead." 

"Of  course,  of  your  gods,  too,"  he  ad- 
ded, "it  is.  claimed  that  they  performed  mir- 
acles, and  of  your  oracles  that  they  fore- 
told the  future,  but  there  is  this  difference 
— the  things  related  of  your  gods  are  a  fic- 
tion, the  things  told  of  Jesus  are  a  fact, 
and  the  difference  betwisen  Paganism  and 
Christianity  is  the  difference  between  fic- 
tion and  fact." 

Just  then  I  heard  a  wave  of  murmur, 
like  the  rustling  of  leaves  in  a  forest,  sweep 
over  the  bowed  audience.  I  turned  about 
and  unconsciously,  my  Greek  curiosity  im- 
pelling me,  I  pushed  forward  toward  where 
the  greater  candle  lights  were  blazing.  I 
felt  that  perhaps  the  commotion  in  the 
house  was  the  announcement  that  the  God 
Jesus  was  about  to  make  his  appearance, 
and  I  wanted  to  see  him.  I  wanted  to  touch 
him,  or,  if  the  crowd  were  too  large  to  al- 


A  Parable  15 

low  me  that  privilege,  I  wanted,  at  least,  to 
hear  his  voice.  I,  who  had  never  seen  a 
god,  never  touched  one,  never  heard  one 
speak,  I  who  had  believed  in  Apollo  with- 
out ever  having  known  anything  provable 
about  him,  I  wanted  to  see  the  real  God, 
Jesus. 

But  my  guide  placed  his  hand  quickly 
upon  my  shoulder,  and  held  me  back. 

"I  want  to  see  Jesus,"  I  hastened,  turn- 
ing toward  him.  I  said  this  reverently  and 
in  good  faith.  "Will  he  not  be  here  this 
morning?  Will  he  not  speak  to  his  wor- 
shippers?" I  asked  again.  "Will  he  not 
permit  them  to  touch  him,  to  caress  his 
hand,  to  clasp  his  divine  feet,  to  inhale  the 
ambrosial  fragrance  of  his  breath,  to  bask 
in  the  golden  light  of  his  eyes,  to  hear  the 
music  of  his  immaculate  accents?  Let  me, 
too,  see  Jesus,"  I  pleaded. 

"You  cannot  see  him,"  answered  my 
guide,  with  a  trace  of  embarrassment  in  his 
voice.  "He  does  not  show  himself  any 
more." 

I  was  too  much  surprised  at  this  to  make 
any  immediate  reply. 

"For  the  last  two  thousand  years,"  my 
guide  continued,  "it  has  not  pleased  Jesus 


16  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

to  show  himself  to  any  one;  neither  has  he 
been  heard  from  for  the  same  number  of 
years." 

"For  two  thousand  years  no  one  has 
either  seen  or  heard  Jesus?"  I  asked,  my 
eyes  filled  with  wonder  and  my  voice  quiv- 
ering with  excitement. 

"No,"  he  answered. 

"Would  not  that,  then,"  I  ventured  to 
ask,  impatiently,  "make  Jesus  as  much  of  an 
idol  as  Apollo?  And  are  not  these  people  on 
their  knees  before  a  god  of  whose  exist- 
ence they  are  as  much  in  the  dark  as  were 
the  Greeks  of  fair  Apollo,  and  of  v/hose 
past  they  have  only  rumors  such  as  Homer 
reports  of  our  Olympian  gods — as  idola- 
trous as  the  Athenians?  What  would  you 
say,"  I  asked  my  guide,  "if  I  were  to  de- 
mand that  you  should  produce  Jesus  and 
prove  him  to  my  eyes  and  ears  as  you  have 
asked  me  to  produce  and  prove  Apollo? 
What  is  the  difference  between  a  ceremony 
performed  in  honor  of  Apollo  and  one  per- 
formed in  honor  of  Jesus,  since  it  is  as 
impossible  to  give  oracular  demonstration 
of  the  existence  of  the  one  as  of  the  other? 
If  Jesus  is  alive  and  a  god,  and  Apollo  is 
an  idol  and  dead,  what  is  the  evidence,  since 


A  Parable  17 

the  one  is  as  invisible,  as  inaccessible,  and  as 
unproducible  as  the  other?  And,  if  faith 
that  Jesus  is  a  god  proves  him  a  god,  why 
will  not  faith  in  Apollo  make  him  a  god? 
But  if  worshipping  Jesus,  whom  for  the 
best  part  of  the  last  two  thousand  years  no 
man  has  seen,  heard  or  touched ;  if  building 
temples  to  him,  burning  incense  upon  his 
altars,  bowing  at  his  shrine  and  calling  him 
"God,"  is  not  idolatry,  neither  is  it  idolatry 
to  kindle  fire  upon  the  luminous  altars  of 
the  Greek  Apollo, — God  of  the  davv^n, 
master  of  the  enchanted  lyre — he  with  the 
bow  and  arrow  tipped  with  fire!  I  am  not 
denying,"  I  said,  "that  Jesus  ever  lived. 
He  may  have  been  alive  two  thousand  years 
ago,  but  if  he  has  not  been  heard  from 
since,  if  the  same  thing  that  happened  to  the 
people  living  at  the  time  he  lived  has  hap- 
pened to  him,  namel}^ — if  he  is  dead,  then 
you  are  worshipping  the  dead,  which  fact 
stamps  your  religion  as  idolatrous." 

And,  then,  remembering  what  he  had  said 
to  me  about  the  Greek  mythology  being 
beautiful  but  not  true,  I  said  to  him:  "Your 
temples  are  indeed  gorgeous  and  costly; 
your  music  is  grand;  your  altars  are  su- 
perb; your  Htany  is  exquisite;  your  chants 


18 


The  Truth  About  Jesus 


are  melting;  your  incense,  and  bells  and 
flowers,  your  gold  and  silver  vessels  are  all 
in  rare  taste,  and  I  dare  say  your  dogmas 
are  subtle  and  your  preachers  eloquent, 
but  your  religion  has  one  fault — it  is  not 
true" 


Swastika. 
Earlier  rorm  of  the  Cross. 


The  Lamb  in  the  Holy  Sepulchre,      Mosaic  of  the  IV  Century, 
barcophagus  of  Luc  de  Beam.    Showing  the  Lamb  on  the  Cros 


IN  CONFIDENCE 

I  shall  speak  in  a  straightforward  way, 
and  shall  say  today  what  perhaps  I  should 
say  tomorrow,  or  ten  years  from  now, — but 
shall  say  it  today,  because  I  cannot  keep 
it  back,  because  I  have  nothing  better  to 
say  than  the  truth,  or  what  I  hold  to  be 
the  truth.     But  why  seek  truths  that  are 
not  pleasant?    We  cannot  help  it.    No  man 
can  suppress  the  truth.    Truth  finds  a  crack 
or  crevice  to  crop  out  of;  it  bobs  up  to  the 
surface  and  all  the  volume  and  weight  of 
waters  can  not  keep  it  down.     Truth  pre- 
vails!    Life,   death,   truth  —  behold,   these 
three  no  power  can  keep  back.    And  since 
we  are  doomed  to  know  the  truth,  let  us 
cultivate  a  love  for  it.     It  is  of  no  avail 
to  cry  over  lost  illusions,  to  long  for  van- 
ished dreams,  or  to  call  to  the  departing 
gods  to  come  back.     It  may  be  pleasant  to 
play  with  toys  and  dolls  all  our  life,  but 


20  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

evidently  we  are  not  meafit  to  remain  chil- 
dren always.  The  time  comes  when  we 
must  put  away  childish  things  and  obey  the 
summons  of  truth,  stern  and  high.  A  peo- 
ple who  fear  the  truth  can  never  be  a  free 
people.  If  what  I  will  say  is  the  truth, 
do  you  know  of  any  good  reason  why  I 
should  not  say  it?  And  if  for  prudential 
reasons  I  should  sometimes  hold  back  the 
truth,  how  would  you  know  when  I  am  tell- 
ing what  I  believe  to  be  the  truth,  and  when 
I  am  holding  it  back  for  reasons  of  policy? 

The  truth,  however  unwelcome,  is  not 
injurious;  it  is  error  which  raises  false 
hopes,  which  destroys,  degrades  and  pol- 
lutes, and  which,  sooner  or  later,  must  be 
abandoned.  Was  it  not  Spencer,  whom 
Darwin  called  "our  great  philosopher,"  who 
said,  "Repulsive  as  is  its  aspect,  the  hard 
fact  which  dissipates  a  cherished  illusion  is 
presently  found  to  contain  the  germ  of  a 
more  salutary  belief?"  Spain  is  decaying 
today  because  her  teachers,  for  policy's  sake, 
are  withholding  the  disagreeable  truth  from 
the  people.  Holy  water  and  sainted  bones 
can  give  a  nation  illusions  and  dreams,  but 
never, — strength. 

A  difficult  subject  is  in  the  nature  of  a 


In  Confidence  21 


challenge  to  the  mind.  One  difficult  task 
attempted  is  worth  a  thousand  commonplace 
efforts  completed.  The  majority  of  people 
avoid  the^fficult  and  fear  danger.  But  he 
who  would  progress  must  even  court  dan- 
ger. Political  and  religious  liberty  were  dis- 
covered through  peril  and  struggle.  The 
world  owes  its  emancipation  to  human  dar- 
ing. Had  Columbus  feared  danger,  Amer- 
ica might  have  slept  for  another  thousand 
years. 

I  have  a  difficult  subject  in  hand.  It  is 
also  a  delicate  one.  But  I  am  determined 
not  only  to  know;  if  it  is  possible,  the  whole 
truth  about  Jesus,  but  also  to  communicate 
that  truth  to  others.  Some  people  can  keep 
their  minds  shut.  I  cannot;  I  must  share 
my  intellectual  life  with  the  world.  If  I 
lived  a  thousand  years  ago,  I  might  have 
collapsed  at  the  sight  of  the  burning  stake, 
but  I  feel  sure  I  would  have  deserved  the 
stake. 

People  say  to  me,  sometimes,  "Why  do 
you  not  confine  yourself  to  moral  and  re- 
ligious exhortation,  such  as,  'Be  kind,  do 
good,  love  one  another,  etc.'?"  But  there  is 
more  of  a  moral  tonic  in  the  open  and  can- 
did discussion  of  a  subject  like  the  one  in 


22  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

hand,  than  in  a  multitude  of  platitudes.  We 
feel  our  moral  fiber  stiffen  into  force  and 
purpose  under  the  inspiration  of  a  perQ 
dared  for  the  advancement  of  truth. 

"Tell  us  what  you  believe,"  is  one  of  the 
requests  frequently  addressed  to  me.  I 
never  deliver  a  lecture  in  which  I  do  not, 
either  directly  or  indirectly,  give  full  and 
free  expression  to  my  faith  in  everything 
that  is  worthy  of  faith.  If  I  do  not  believe 
in  dogma,  it  is  because  I  believe  in  freedom. 
If  I  do  not  believe  in  one  inspired  book,  it 
is  because  I  believe  that  all  truth  and  only 
truth  is  inspired.  If  I  dd  not  ask  the  gods 
to  help  us,  it  is  because  I  believe  in  human 
help,  so  much  more  real  than  supernatural 
help.  If  I  do  not  believe  in  standing  still, 
it  is  because  I  believe  in  progress.  If  I  am 
not  attracted  by  the  vision  of  a  distant 
heaven,  it  is  because  I  believe  in  human 
happiness,  now  and  here.  If  I  do  not  say 
"Lord,  Lord!"  to  Jesus,  it  is  because  I  bow 
my  head  to  a  greater  Power  than  Jesus,  to 
a  more  efficient  Savior  than  he  has  ever  been 
— Science ! 

"Oh,  he  tears  down,  but  does  not  build 
up,"  is  another  criticism  about  my  work.  It 
is  not  true.    No  preacher  or  priest  is  more 


In  Confidence  23 


constructive.  To  build  up  their  churches 
and  maintain  their  creeds  the  priests  pulled 
down  and  destroyed  the  magnificent  civil- 
ization of  Greece  and  Rome,  plunging 
Europe  into  the  dark  and  sterile  ages  which 
lasted  over  a  thousand  years.  When  Gali- 
leo waved  his  hands  for  joy  because  he  be- 
heved  he  had  enriched  humanity  with  a  new 
truth  and  extended  the  sphere  of  knowledge, 
what  did  the  church  do  to  him?  It  conspired 
to  destroy  him.  It  shut  him  up  in  a  dun- 
geon I  Clapping  truth  into  jail;  gagging 
the  mouth  of  the  student — is  that  building 
up  or  tearing  down?  When  Bruno  lighted 
a  new  torch  to  increase  the  light  of  the 
world,  what  was  his  reward?  The  stake! 
During  all  the  ages  that  the  church  had  the 
power  to  police  the  world,  every  time  a 
thinker  raised  his  head  he  was  clubbed  to 
death.  Do  you  think  it  is  kind  of  us — does 
it  square  with  our  sense  of  justice  to  call  the 
priest  constructive,  and  the  scientists  and 
philosophers  who  have  helped  people  to  their 
feet — helped  them  to  self-government  in 
politics,  and  to  self-help  in  life, — destruc- 
tive? Count  your  rights — political,  relig- 
ious, social,  intellectual — and  tell  me  which 
of  them  was  conquered  for  you  by  the  priest. 


24  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

"He  is  irreverent,"  is  still  another  hasty 
criticism  I  have  heard  advanced  against  the 
rationalist.  I  wish  to  tell  you  something. 
But  first  let  us  be  impersonal.  The  epithets 
"irreverent,"  "blasphemer,"  "atheist,"  and 
"infidel,"  are  flung  at  a  man,  not  from  pity, 
but  from  envy.  Not  having  the  courage  or 
the  industry  of  our  neighbor  who  works  like 
a  busy  bee  in  the  world  of  men  and  books, 
searching  with  the  sweat  of  his  brow  for  the 
real  bread  of  life,  wetting  the  open  page  be- 
fore him  with  his  tears,  pushing  into  the 
"wee"  hours  of  the  night  his  quest,  animated 
by  the  fairest  of  all  loves,  the  love  of  truth, 
— we  ease  our  own  indolent  conscience  by 
calling  him  names.  We  pretend  that  it  is  not 
because  we  are  too  lazy  or  too  selfish  to  work 
as  hard  or  think  as  freely  as  he  does,  but  be- 
cause we  do  not  want  to  be  as  irreverent  as 
he  is  that  we  keep  the  windows  of  our  minds 
shut.  To  excuse  our  own  mediocrity  we  call 
the  man  who  tries  to  get  out  of  the  rut  a 
"blasphemer."  And  so  we  ask  the  world  to 
praise  our  indifference  as  a  great  virtue, 
and  to  denounce  the  conscientious  toil  and 
thought  of  another,  as  "blasphemy." 


The  Lamb  Standing  Upon  the  Gospels. 
VIII  Century. 


IS  JESUS  A  MYTH? 

What  is  a  myth?  A  myth  is  a  fanciful 
explanation  of  a  given  phenomenon.  Ob- 
serving the  sun,  the  moon,  and  the  stars 
overhead,  the  primitive  man  wished  to  ac- 
count for  them.  This  was  natural.  The 
mind  craves  for  knowledge.  The  child  asks 
questions  because  of  an  inborn  desire  to 
know.  Man  feels  ill  at  ease  with  a  sense  of 
a  mental  vacuum,  until  his  questions  are 
answered.  Before  the  days  of  science,  a 
fanciful  answer  was  all  that  could  be  given 
to  man's  questions  about  the  physical  world. 
The  primitive  man  guessed  where  knowl- 
edge failed  him — what  else  could  he  do?  A 
myth,  then,  is  a  guess,  a  story,  a  speculation, 
or  a  fanciful  explanation  of  a  phenomenon, 
in  the  absence  of  accurate  information. 

Many  are  the  myths  about  the  heavenly 
bodies,  which,  while  we  call  them  myths,  be- 
cause we  know  better,  were  to  the  ancients 

25 


26  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

truths.  The  Sun  and  3Ioon  were  once 
brother  and  sister,  thought  the  child-man; 
but  there  arose  a  dispute  between  them;  the 
woman  ran  away,  and  the  man  ran  after 
her,  until  they  came  to  the  end  of  the 
earth  where  land  and  sky  met.  The 
woman  jumped  into  the  sky,  and  the  man 
after  her,  where  they  kept  chasing  each 
other  forever,  as  Sun  and  ]Moon.  Xow  and 
then  they  came  close  enough  to  snap  at  each 
other.  That  was  their  explanation  of  an 
ecHpse.*  With  this  mythus,  the  primitive 
man  was  satisfied,  until  his  developing  in- 
telligence realized  its  inadequacy.  Science 
was  bom  of  that  realization. 

During  the  middle  ages  it  was  beheved 
by  Europeans  that  in  certain  parts  of  the 
world,  in  India,  for  instance,  there  were 
people  who  had  only  one  eye  in  the  middle 
of  their  foreheads,  and  were  more  like 
monsters  than  humans.  This  was  imaginary 
knowledge,  which  travel  and  research  have 
corrected.  The  myth  of  a  one-eyed  people 
living  in  India  has  been  replaced  by  accu- 
rate information  concerning  the  Hindoos. 
Likewise,  before  the  science  of  ancient  lan- 
guages was  perfected — ^before  archaeology 

♦ChOdhood  oi  the  World. — Zd-Tsrd  Qodd. 


Is  Jesus  a  Myih?  27 

had  dug  up  buried  cities  and  deciphered  the 
hieroglyphics  on  the  monuments  of  an- 
tiquity, most  of  our  knowledge  concerning 
the  earher  ages  was  mythical,  that  is  to  say, 
it  was  knowledge  not  based  on  investigation, 
but  made  to  order.  Just  as  the  theologians 
still  speculate  about  the  other  world,  primi- 
tive man  speculated  about  this  world.  Even 
we  modems,  not  very  long  ago,  beheved, 
for  instance,  that  the  land  of  Egypt  was 
visited  by  ten  fantastic  plagues :  that  in  one 
bloody  night  every  first  bom  in  the  land 
was  slain:  that  the  angel  of  a  tribal-god 
dipped  his  hand  in  blood  and  printed  a  red 
mark  upon  the  doors  of  the  houses  of  tbe 
Jews  to  protect  them  from  harm:  that 
Pharaoh  and  his  armies  were  drowned  in 
the  Red  Sea:  that  the  children  of  Israel 
wandered  for  forty  years  around  Mount 
Sinai ;  and  so  forth,  and  so  forth.  But  now 
that  we  can  read  the  inscriptions  on  the 
stone  pages  dug  out  of  ancient  ruins:  now 
that  we  can  compel  a  buried  world  to  reveal 
its  secret  and  to  tell  us  its  story,  we  do  not 
have  to  go  on  making  myths  about  the  an- 
cients.   3Iyths  die  when  history  is  bom. 

It  will  be  seen  from  these  examples  that 
there  is  no  harm  in  myth-making  if  the  myth 


28  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

is  called  a  myth.  It  is  when  we  use  our 
fanciful  knowledge  to  deny  or  to  shut  out 
real  and  scientific  knowledge  that  the  myth 
becomes  a  stumbling  block.  And  this  is 
precisely  the  use  to  which  myths  have  been 
put.  The  king  with  his  sword  and  the  priest 
with  his  curses,  have  supported  the  myth 
against  science.  When  a  man  pretends  to 
believe  that  the  Santa  Claus  of  his  childhood 
is  real,  and  tries  to  compel  also  others  to 
play  a  part,  he  becomes  positively  immoral. 
There  is  no  harm  in  believing  in  Santa  Claus 
as  a  myth,  but  there  is  in  pretending  that  he 
is  real,  because  such  an  attitude  of  mind 
makes  a  mere  trifle  of  truth. 

Is  Jesus  a  myth?  There  is  in  man  a 
faculty  for  fiction.  Before  history  was 
born,  there  was  myth;  before  men  could 
think,  they  dreamed.  It  was  with  the  hu- 
man race  in  its  infancy  as  it  is  with  the 
child.  The  child's  imagination  is  more  ac- 
tive than  its  reason.  It  is  easier  for  it  to 
fancy  even  than  to  see.  It  thinks  less  than 
it  guesses.  This  wild  flight  of  fancy  is 
checked  only  by  experience.  It  is  reflection 
which  introduces  a  bit  into  the  mouth  of 
imagination,  curbing  its  pace  and  subduing 
its  restless  spirit.     It  is,  then,  as  we  grow 


75  Jesus  a  Myth?  29 

older,  and,  if  I  may  use  the  word,  riper,  that 
we  learn  to  distinguish  between  fact  and 
fiction,  between  history  and  myth. 

In  childhood  we  need  playthings,  and  the 
more  fantastic  and  bizarre  they  are,  the  bet- 
ter we  are  pleased  with  them.  We  dream, 
for  instance,  of  castles  in  the  air — gorgeous 
and  clothed  with  the  azure  hue  of  the  skies. 
We  fill  the  space  about  and  over  us  with 
spirits,  fairies,  gods,  and  other  invisible  and 
airy  beings.  We  covet  the  rainbow.  We 
reach  out  for  the  moon.  Our  feet  do  not 
really  begin  to  touch  the  firm  ground  until 
we  have  reached  the  j'^ears  of  discretion. 

I  know  there  are  those  who  wish  they 
could  always  remain  children, — living  in 
dreamland.  But  even  if  this  were  desirable, 
it  is  not  possible.  Evolution  is  our  destiny; 
of  what  use  is  it,  then,  to  take  up  arms 
against  destiny? 

Let  it  be  borne  in  mind  that  all  the  re- 
ligions of  the  world  were  born  in  the  child- 
hood of  the  race. 

Science  was  not  born  until  man  had  ma- 
tured. There  is  in  this  thought  a  world  of 
meaning. 

Children  make  religions. 

Grown  up  people  create  science. 


30  The  Truth  About  Jesus 


The  cradle  is  the  womb  of  all  the  fairies 
and  faiths  of  mankind. 

The  school  is  the  birthplace  of  science. 

Religion  is  the  science  of  the  child. 

Science  is  the  religion  of  the  matured 
man. 

In  the  discussion  of  this  subject,  I  appeal 
to  the  mature,  not  to  the  child  mind.  I  ap- 
peal to  those  who  have  cultivated  a  taste  for 
truth — who  are  not  easily  scared,  but  who 
can  "screw  their  courage  to  the  sticking 
point"  and  follow  to  the  end  truth's  leading. 
The  multitude  is  ever  joined  to  its  idols; 
let  them  alone.  I  speak  to  the  discerning 
few. 

There  is  an  important  difference  between 
a  lecturer  and  an  ordained  preacher.  The 
latter  can  command  a  hearing  in  the  name 
of  God,  or  in  the  name  of  the  Bible.  He 
does  not  have  to  satisfy  his  hearers  about 
the  reasonableness  of  what  he  preaches.  He 
is  God's  mouthpiece,  and  no  one  may  dis- 
agree with  him.  He  can  also  invoke  the 
authority  of  the  church  and  of  the  Chris- 
tian world  to  enforce  acceptance  of  his 
teaching.  The  only  way  I  may  command 
your  respect  is  to  be  reasonable.  You 
will  not  listen  to  me  for  God's  sake,  nor  for 


Is  Jesus  a  Myth? 


31 


the  Bible's  sake,  nor  yet  for  the  love  of 
heaven,  or  the  fear  of  hell.  My  only  pro- 
tection is  to  be  rational — to  be  truthful.  In 
other  words,  the  preacher  can  afford  to  ig- 
nore common  sense  in  the  name  of  Revela- 
tion. But  if  I  depart  from  it  in  the  least, 
or  am  caught  once  playing  fast  and  loose 
with  the  facts,  I  will  irretrievably  lose  my 
standing. 


In   Use   Upon    Heathen   Altars   Centuries   Before    Christianity. 


Our  answer  to  the  question,  Is  Jesus  a 
Myth?  must  depend  more  or  less  upon  orig- 
inal research,  as  there  is  very  little  written 
on  the  subject.  The  majority  of  writers 
assume  that  a  person  answering  to  the  de- 
scription of  Jesus  lived  some  two  thousand 
years  ago.  Even  the  few  who  entertain 
doubts  on  the  subject,  seem  to  hold  that 
whil^  there  is  a  large  mythical  element  in 


32  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

the  Jesus  story,  nevertheless  there  is  a  his- 
torical nucleus  round  which  has  clustered 
the  elaborate  legend  of  the  Christ.  In  all 
probability,  they  argue,  there  was  a  man 
called  Jesus,  who  said  many  helpful  things, 
and  led  an  exemplary  life,  and  all  the  mir- 
acles and  wonders  represent  the  accretions 
of  fond  and  pious  ages. 

Let  us  place  ourselves  entirely  in  the 
hands  of  the  evidence.  As  far  as  possible, 
let  us  be  passive,  showing  no  predisposition 
one  way  or  another.  We  can  afford  to  be 
independent.  If  the  evidence  proves  the 
historicity  of  Jesus,  well  and  good;  if  the 
evidence  is  not  sufficient  to  prove  it,  there 
is  no  reason  why  we  should  fear  to  say  so; 
besides,  it  is  our  duty  to  inform  ourselves 
on  this  question.  As  intelligent  beings  we 
desire  to  know  whether  this  Jesus,  whose 
worship  is  not  only  costing  the  world  mil- 
lions of  the  people's  money,  but  which  is 
also  drawing  to  his  service  the  time,  the  en- 
ergies, the  affection,  the  devotion,  and  the 
labor  of  humanity, — is  a  myth,  or  a  reality. 
We  believe  that  all  religious  persecutions, 
all  sectarian  wars,  hatreds  and  intolerance, 
which  still  cramp  and  embitter  our  human- 
ity, would  be  replaced  by  love  and  brother- 


Is  Jesus  a  Myth?  33 

hood,  if  the  sects  could  be  made  to  see  that 
the  God-Jesus  they  are  quarrehng  over  is 
a  myth,  a  shadow  to  which  creduhty  alone 
gives  substance.  Like  people  who  have  been 
fighting  in  the  dark,  fearing  some  danger, 
the  sects,  once  relieved  of  the  thraldom  of  a 
tradition  which  lias  been  handed  down  to 
them  by  a  childish  age  and  country,  v/ill 
turn  around  and  embrace  one  another.  In 
every  sense,  the  subject  is  an  all-absorbing 
one.  It  goes  to  the  root  of  things ;  it  touches 
the  vital  parts,  and  it  means  life  or  death 
to  the  Christian  relig-ion. 


I 
Ascension    of   Jesus,    Ninth    Century. 


Juno   Nursing  Her  Divine   Child, 

Mars. 


THE  PROBLEM  STATED 

Let  me  now  give  an  idea  of  the  method 
I  propose  to  follow  in  the  study  of  this 
subject.  Let  us  suppose  that  a  student  liv- 
ing in  the  year  3000  desired  to  make  sure 
that  such  a  man  as  Abraham  Lincoln  really 
lived  and  did  the  things  attributed  to  him. 
How  would  he  go  about  it? 

A  man  must  have  a  birthplace  and  a  birth- 
day. All  the  records  agree  as  to  where  and 
when  Lincoln  was  born.  This  is  not  enough 
to  prove  his  historicity,  but  it  is  an  import- 
ant link  in  the  chain. 

34 


The  Problem  Stated  35 


Neither  the  place  nor  the  time  of  Jesus' 
birth  is  known.     There  has  never  been  any 
unanimity  about   this  matter.     There  has 
been  considerable  confusion  and  contradic- 
tion about  it.    It  cannot  be  proved  that  the 
twenty-fifth  of  December  is  his  birthday. 
A  number  of  other  dates  were  observed  by 
the  Christian  church  at  various  times  as  the 
birthday  of  Jesus.    The  Gospels  give  no 
date,  and  appear  to  be  quite  uncertain — 
really  ignorant  about  it.     When  it  is  re- 
membered that  the  Gospels  purport  to  have 
been  written  by  Jesus'  intimate  companions, 
and  during  the  lifetime  of  his  brothers  and 
mother,  their  silence  on  this  matter  becomes 
significant.    The  selection   of  the  twenty- 
fifth  of  December  as  his  birthday  is  not 
only  an  arbitrary  one,  but  that  date,  having 
been   from  time  immemorial  dedicated   to 
the  Sun,  the  inference  is  that  the  Son  of 
God  and  the  Sun  of  heaven  enjoying  the 
same  birthday,  were  at  one  time  identical 
beings.   The  fact  that  Jesus'  death  was  ac- 
companied with  the  darkening  of  the  Sun, 
and  that  the  date  of  his  resurrection  is  also 
associated  with  the  position  of  the  Sun  at 
the  time  of  the  vernal  equinox,  is  a  further 
mtimation  that  we  have  in  the  story  of  tJie 


36  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

birth,  death,  and  resurrection  of  Jesus,  an 
ancient  and  nearly  universal  Sun-myth,  in- 
stead of  verifiable  historical  events.  The 
story  of  Jesus  for  three  days  in  the  heart 
of  the  earth;  of  Jonah,  three  days  in 
the  belly  of  a  fish;  of  Hercules,  three  days 
in  the  belly  of  a  whale,  and  of  Little  Red 
Riding  Hood,  sleeping  in  the  belly  of  a 
great  black  wolf,  represent  the  attempt  of 
primitive  man  to  explain  the  phenomenon 
of  Day  and  Night.  The  Sun  is  swallowed 
by  a  dragon,  a  wolf,  or  a  whale,,  which 
plunges  the  world  into  darkness;  but  the 
dragon  is  killed,  and  the  Sun  rises  trium- 
phant to  make  another  Day.  This  ancient 
Sun  myth  is  the  starting  point  of  nearly  all 
miraculous  religions,  from  the  days  of 
Egypt  to  the  twentieth  century. 

The  story  which  Mathew  relates  about  a 
remarkable  star,  which  sailing  in  the  air 
pointed  out  to  some  unnamed  magicians 
the  cradle  or  cave  in  which  the  wonder-child 
was  born,  helps  further  to  identify  Jesus 
with  the  Sun.  What  became  of  this  "per- 
forming" star,  or  of  the  magicians,  and 
their  costly  gifts,  the  records  do  not  say.  It 
is  more  likely  that  it  was  the  astrological 
predilections  of  the  gospel  writer  which  led 


The  Problem  'Slated  37 


The    Persian    God,    Mithra. 

All   the  Gods  Have  the   Solar  Disc  Around  Their  Heads,    Showing 

That  Sun-Worship  Was  One  of  the  Earliest  Forms  of  Religion. 

him  to  assign  to  his  God-child  a  star  in  the 
heavens.  The  behef  that  the  stars  deter- 
mine human  destinies  is  a  very  ancient  one. 
Such  expressions  in  our  language  as  "ill- 
starred,"  "a  lucky  star,"  "disaster,"  "luna- 
cy," and  so  on,  indicate  the  hold  which  as- 
trology once  enjoyed  upon  the  human  mind. 
We  still  call  a  melancholy  man,  Saturnine; 
a  cheerful  man.  Jovial;  a  quick-tempered 
man.  Mercurial;  showing  how  closely  our 
ancestors  associated  the  movements  of  ce- 
lestial bodies  with  human  affairs.*  The 
prominence,  therefore,  of  the  sun  and  stars 
in   the   Gospel   story   tends   to   show   that 

♦Childhood  of  the  World. — Edward  Clodd. 


38  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

Jesus  is  an  astrological  rather  than  a  his- 
torical character. 

That  the  time  of  his  birth,  his  death,  and 
supposed  resurrection  is  not  verifiable  is 
generally  admitted. 

This  uncertainty  robs  the  story  of  Jesus, 
to  an  extent  at  least,  of  the  atmosphere  of 
reality. 

The  twenty-fifth  of  December  is  celebra- 
ted as  his  birthday.  Yet  there  is  no  evidence 
that  he  was  born  on  that  day.  Although 
the  Gospels  are  silent  as  to  the  date  on 
which  Jesus  was  born,  there  is  circumstantial 
evidence  in  the  accounts  given  of  the  event 
to  show  that  the  twenty-fifth  of  December 
could  not  have  been  his  birthday.  It  snows 
in  Palestine,  though  a  warmer  country,  and 
we  know  that  in  December  there  are  no 
shepherds  tending  their  flocks  in  the  night 
time  in  that  country.  Often  at  this  time 
of  the  year  the  fields  and  hills  are  covered 
with  snow.  Hence,  if  the  shepherds  sleep- 
ing in  the  fields  really  saw  the  heavens  open 
and  heard  the  angel-song,  in  all  probability 
it  was  in  some  other  month  of  the  year,  and 
not  late  in  December.  We  know,  also,  that 
early  in  the  history  of  Christianity  the 
months  of  May  and  June  enjoyed  the  honor 


The  Problem  Stated 


39 


of  containing  the  day  of  Jesus'  birth. 

Of  course,  it  is  immaterial  on  which 
day  Jesus  was  born,  but  why  is  it  not 
known?  Yet  not  only  is  the  date  of  his  birth 
a  matter  of  conjecture,  but  also  the  year  in 
which  he  was  born.     Matthew,  one  of  the 


Isis   Nursing  Her   Divine   Child, 
3000  B.  0. 

Evangelists,  suggests  that  Jesus  was  born 
in  King  Herod's  time,  for  it  was  tliis  king 
who,  hearing  from  the  Magi  that  a  King  of 
the  Jews  was  born,  decided  to  destroy  him; 
but  Luke,  another  Evangelist,  intimates 
that  Jesus  was  born  when  Quirinus  was 
ruler  of  Judea,  which  makes  the  date  of 


40  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

Jesus'  birth  about  fourteen  years  later  than 
the  date  given  by  Matthew.  Why  this  dis- 
crepancy in  a  historical  document,  to  say 
nothing  about  inspiration?  The  theologian 
might  say  that  this  little  difficulty  was  intro- 
duced purposely  into  the  scriptures  to  es- 
tablish its  infallibility,  but  it  is  only  relig- 
ious books  that  are  pronounced  infallible  on 
the  strength  of  the  contradictions  they  con- 
tain. 

Again,  Matthew  says  that  to  escape  the 
evil  designs  of  Herod,  Mary  and  Joseph, 
with  the  infant  Jesus,  fled  into  Egypt, 
Luke  says  nothing  about  this  hurried  flight, 
nor  of  Herod's  intention  to  kill  the  infant 
Messiah.  On  the  contrary  he  tells  us  that 
after  the  forty  days  of  purification  were 
over  Jesus  was  publicly  presented  at  the 
temple,  where  Herod,  if  he  really,  as  Mat- 
thew relates,  wished  to  seize  him,  could 
have  done  so  without  difficulty.  It  is  im- 
possible to  reconcile  the  flight  to  Egypt  with 
the  presentation  in  the  temple,  and  this  in- 
consistency is  certainly  insurmountable  and 
makes  it  look  as  if  the  narrative  had  no 
value  whatever  as  history. 

When  we  come  to  the  more  important 
chapters  about  Jesus,  we  meet  with  greater 


Tlie  Problem  Stated  41 

difficulties.  Have  you  ever  noticed  that  the 
day  on  which  Jesus  is  supposed  to  have  died 
falls  invariably  on  a  Friday?  What  is  the 
reason  for  this?  It  is  evident  that  nobody 
knows,  and  nobody  ever  knew  the  date  on 
which  the  Crucifixion  took  place,  if  it  ever 
took  place.  It  is  so  obscure  and  so  mythical 
that  an  artificial  day  has  been  fixed  by  the 
Ecclesiastical  councils.  While  it  is  always 
on  a  Friday  that  the  Crucifixion  is  com- 
memorated, the  week  in  which  the  day  oc- 
curs varies  from  year  to  year.  "Good  Fri- 
day" falls  not  before  the  spring  equinox, 
but  as  soon  after  the  spring  equinox  as  the 
full  moon  allows,  thus  making  the  calcula- 
tion to  depend  upon  the  position  of  the  sun 
in  the  Zodiac  and  the  phases  of  the  moon. 
But  that  was  precisely  the  way  the  day  for 
the  festival  of  the  pagan  goddess  Oestera 
was  determined.  The  Pagan  Oestera  has 
become  the  Christian  Easter.  Does  not  this 
fact,  as  well  as  those  already  touched  upon, 
make  the  story  of  Jesus  to  read  very  much 
like  the  stories  of  the  Pagan  deities. 

The  early  Christians,  Origin,  for  instance, 
in  his  reply  to  the  rationalist  Celsus  who 
questioned  the  reality  of  Jesus,  instead  of 
producing  evidence  of  a  historical  nature, 


42  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

appealed  to  the  mythology  of  the  pagans  to 
prove  that  the  story  of  Jesus  was  no  more 
incredible  than  those  of  the  Greek  and 
Roman  gods.  This  is  so  important  that  we 
refer  our  readers  to  Origin's  own  words  on 
the  subject.  "Before  replying  to  Celsus,  it 
is  necessary  to  admit  that  in  the  matter  of 
history,  however  true  it  might  be,"  writes 
this  Christian  Father,  "it  is  often  very  diffi- 
cult and  sometimes  quite  impossible  to  estab- 
lish its  truth  by  evidence  which  shall  be  con- 
sidered sufficient."*  This  is  a  plain  admission 
that  as  early  as  the  second  and  third  centu- 
ries the  claims  put  forth  about  Jesus  did  not 
admit  of  positive  historical  demonstration. 
But  in  the  absence  of  evidence  Origin  of- 
fers the  following  metaphysical  arguments 
against  the  sceptical  Celsus:  1.  Such  sto- 
ries as  are  told  of  Jesus  are  admitted  to  be 
true  when  told  of  pagan  divinities,  why  can 
they  not  also  be  true  when  told  of  the  Chris- 
tian Messiah?  2.  They  must  be  true  because 
they  are  the  fulfillment  of  Old  Testament 
prophecies.  1 1  In  other  words,  the  only  proofs 
Origin  can  bring  forth  against  the  rational- 
istic criticism  of  Celsus  is,  that  to  deny  Jesus 

♦Origin    Centre  Celse.     1.  58  et  Suiv. 
lilbid. 


Tlie  Problem  Stated  43 

would  be  equivalent  to  denying  both  the 
Pagan  and  Jewish  mythologies.  If  Jesus 
is  not  real,  says  Origin,  then  Apollo  was  not 
real,  and  the  Old  Testament  prophecies  have 
not  been  fulfilled.  If  we  are  to  have  anj* 
mythology  at  all,  he  seems  to  argue,  why 
object  to  adding  to  it  the  mythus  of  Jesus? 
There  could  not  be  a  more  damaging  admis- 
sion than  this  from  one  of  the  most  con- 
sjiicuous  defenders  of  Jesus'  story  against 
early  criticism. 

Justin  Martyr,  another  early  Father,  of- 
fers the  following  argument  against  unbe- 
lievers in  the  Christian  legend:  "When  we 
say  also  that  the  Word,  which  is  the  first 
birth  of  God,  was  produced  without  sexual 
union,  and  that  he,  Jesus  Christ,  our  teacher, 
M^as  crucified,  died,  and  rose  again,  and  as- 
cended into  heaven,  we  propound  nothing 
different  from  what  you  believe  regarding 
those  whom  you  esteem  sons  of  Jupiter."* 
Which  is  another  way  of  saying  that  the 
Christian  mythus  is  very  similar  to  the  pa- 
gan, and  should  therefore  be  equally  true. 
Pressing  his  argument  further,  this  inter- 
esting Father  discovers  many  resemblances 
between  what  he  himself  is  preaching  and 

*First   Apology,    Chapter   xxi    (Anti-Nicene   Library). 


44 


The  Truth  About  Jesus 


what  the  pagans  have  always  believed:  "For 
you  know  how  many  sons  your  esteemed 
writers  ascribe  to  Jupiter.  Mercury,  the  in- 
terpreting word  (he  spells  this  word  with  a 
small  w,  while  in  the  above  quotation  he  uses 
a  capital  w  to  denote  the  Christian  incarna- 


The  Unsexed  Christ,   Naked. 
In  the  Church  of  St.  Antoine,  Tours,  France. 

tion)  and  teacher  of  all;  Aesculapius  .  .  . 
who  ascended  to  heaven;  one  Hercules  .  .  . 
and  Perseus;  .  .  .  and  Bellerophon,  who, 
though  sprung  from  mortals,  rose  to  heaven 
on  the  horses  of  Pegasus."*  If  Jupiter  can 
have,  Justin  Martyr  seems  to  reason,  half  a 

"•IbTd. 


The  Problem  Stated  45 

dozen  divine  sons,  why  cannot  Jehovah  have 
at  least  one? 

Instead  of  producing  historical  evidence 
or  appealing  to  creditable  documents,  as  one 
would  to  prove  the  existence  of  a  Caesar  or 
an  Alexander,  Justin  Martyr  draws  upon 
pagan  mythology  in  his  reply  to  the  critics 
of  Christianity.  All  he  seems  to  ask  for  is 
that  Jesus  be  given  a  higher  place  among 
the  divinities  of  the  ancient  world. 

To  help  their  cause  the  Christian  apolo- 
gists not  infrequently  also  changed  the  sense 
of  certain  Old  Testament  passages  to  make 
them  support  the  miraculous  stories  in  the 
New  Testament.  For  example,  having  bor- 
rowed from  Oriental  books  the  story  of  the 
god  in  a  manger,  surrounded  by  staring  ani- 
mals, the  Christian  fathers  introduced  a  pre- 
diction of  this  event  into  the  following  text 
from  the  book  of  Habakkuk  in  the  Bible: 
"Accomplish  thy  work  in  the  midst  of  the 
years,  in  the  midst  of  the  years  make 
known,  etc."*  This  Old  Testament  text 
appeared  in  the  Greek  translation  as 
follows:  "Thou  shalt  manifest  thyself 
in  the  midst  of  two  animals/'  which  was 
fulfilled  of  course  when  Jesus   was  born 

*Hab.  iii.  2. 


46  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

in  a  stable.  How  weak  must  be  one's 
case  to  resort  to  such  tactics  in  order 
to  command  a  following!  And  when  it  is 
remembered  that  these  follies  were  deemed 
necessary  to  prove  the  reality  of  what  has 
been  claimed  as  the  most  stupendous  event 
in  all  history,  one  can  readily  see  upon  how 
fragile  a  foundation  is  built  the  story  of 
the  Christian  God-man. 

Let  us  continue:  Abraham  Lincoln's  as- 
sociates and  contemporaries  are  all  known 
to  history.  The  immediate  companions  of 
Jesus  appear  to  be,  on  the  other  hand,  as 
mythical  as  he  is  himself.  Who  was  Mat- 
thew? Who  was  Mark?  Who  were  John, 
Peter,  Judas,  and  Mary?  There  is  absolutely 
no  evidence  that  they  ever  existed.  They 
are  not  mentioned  except  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament books,  which,  as  we  shall  see,  are 
"supposed"  copies  of  "supposed"  originals. 
If  Peter  ever  went  to  Rome  with  a  new 
doctrine,  how  is  it  that  no  historian  has  taken 
note  of  him?  If  Paul  visited  Athens  and 
preached  from  Mars  Hill,  how  is  it  that 
there  is  no  mention  of  him  or  of  his  strange 
Gospel  in  the  Athenian  chronicles?  For 
all  we  know,  both  Peter  and  Paul  may  have 
really  existed,  but  it  is  only  a  guess,  as  Vv^e 


The  Problem  Stated  47 


have  no  means  of  ascertaining.  The  uncer- 
tainty about  the  apostles  of  Jesus  is  quite 
in  keeping  with  the  uncertainty  about 
Jesus  himself. 

The  report  that  Jesus  had  twelve  apostles 
seems  also  mythical.  The  number  twelve, 
like  the  number  seven,  or  three,  or  forty, 
plays  an  important  role  in  all  Sun-myths, 
and  points  to  the  twelve  signs  of  the  Zodiac. 
Jacob  had  twelve  sons;  there  were  twelve 
tribes  of  Israel;  twelve  months  in  the  year; 
twelve  gates  or  pillars  of  heaven,  etc.  In 
many  of  the  rehgions  of  the  world,  the 
number  twelve  is  sacred.  There  have  been 
few  god-saviors  who  did  not  have  twelve 
apostles  or  messengers.  In  one  or  two 
places,  in  the  New  Testament,  Jesus  is  made 
to  send  out  "the  seventy"  to  evangelize  the 
world.  Here  again  we  see  the  presence  of  a 
myth.  It  was  believed  that  there  were  sev- 
enty different  nations  in  the  world — to  each 
nation  an  apostle.  Seventy  wise  men  are 
supposed  to  have  translated  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, sitting  in  seventy  different  cells.  That 
is  why  their  translation  is  called  "the  Sep- 
tuagint"  But  it  is  all  a  legend,  as  there  is 
no  evidence  of  seventy  scholars  working  in 
seventy    individual    cells    on    the    Hebrew 


48  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

Bible.  One  of  the  Church  Fathers  declares 
that  he  saw  these  seventy  cells  with  his  own 
eyes.    He  was  the  only  one  who  saw  them. 

That  the  "Twelve  Apostles"  are  fanciful 
may  be  inferred  from  the  obscurity  in  which 
the  greater  number  of  them  have  remained. 
Peter,  Paul,  John,  James,  Judas,  occupy 
the  stage  almost  exclusively.  If  Paul  was 
an  apostle,  we  have  fourteen,  instead  of 
twelve.  Leaving  out  Judas,  and  counting 
Matthias,  who  was  elected  in  his  place,  we 
have  thirteen  apostles. 

The  number  forty  figures  also  in  many 
primitive  myths.  The  Jews  were  in  the 
wilderness  for  forty  years ;  Jesus  fasted  for 
forty  days;  from  the  resurrection  to  the 
ascension  were  forty  days;  Moses  was  on 
the  mountain  with  God  for  forty  days.  An 
account  in  which  such  scrupulous  attention 
is  shown  to  supposed  sacred  numbers  is  apt 
to  be  more  artificial  than  real.  The  bio- 
graphers of  Lincoln  or  of  Socrates  do  not 
seem  to  be  interested  in  numbers.  They 
write  history,  not  stories. 

Again,  many  of  the  contemporaries  of 
Lincoln  bear  written  witness  to  his  exist- 
ence. The  historians  of  the  time,  the  states- 
men,   the    publicists,    the    chroniclers — all 


The  Problem  Stated  49 

seem  to  be  acquainted  with  him,  or  to  have 
heard  of  him.  It  is  impossible  to  explain 
why  the  contemporaries  of  Jesus,  the  au- 
thors and  historians  of  his  time,  do  not  take 
notice  of  him.  If  Abraham  Lincoln  was 
important  enough  to  have  attracted  the  at- 
tention of  his  contemporaries,  how  much 
more  Jesus.  Is  it  reasonable  to  suppose 
that  these  Pagan  and  Jewish  writers  knew 
of  Jesus, — had  heard  of  his  incomparably 
great  works  and  sayings, — but  omitted  to 
give  him  a  page  or  a  line  ?  Could  they  have 
been  in  a  conspiracy  against  Iiim?  How  else 
is  this  unanimous  silence  to  be  accounted 
for?  Is  it  not  more  hkely  that  the  wonder- 
working Jesus  was  unknown  to  them?  And 
he  was  unkno^vn  to  them  because  no  such 
Jesus  existed  in  their  day. 

Should  the  student,  looking  into  Abra- 
ham Lincoln's  history,  discover  that  no  one 
of  his  biographers  knew  positively  just 
when  he  lived  or  where  he  was  born,  he 
would  have  reason  to  conclude  that  because 
of  this  uncertainty  on  the  part  of  the  bi- 
ographers, he  must  be  more  exacting  than 
he  otherwise  would  have  been.  That  is 
precisely  our  position.  Of  course,  there 
are     in     history     great     men     of     whose 


50  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

birthplaces  or  birthdays  we  are  equally 
uncertain.  But  we  believe  in  their  ex- 
istence, not  because  no  one  seems  to  know 
exactly  when  and  where  they  were  born,  but 
because  there  is  overwhelming  evidence  cor- 
roborating the  other  reports  about  them, 
and  which  is  sufficient  to  remove  the  sus- 
picion suggested  by  the  darkness  hanging 
over  their  nativity.  Is  there  any  evidence 
strong  enough  to  prove  the  historicity  of 
Jesus,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  not  even  his 
supposed  companions,  writing  during  the 
lifetime  of  Jesus'  mother,  have  any  definite 
information  to  give. 

But  let  us  continue.  The  reports  current 
about  a  man  like  Lincoln  are  verifiable, 
while  many  of  those  about  Jesus  are  of  a 
nature  that  no  amount  of  evidence  can  con- 
firm. That  Lincoln  was  President  of  these 
United  States,  that  he  signed  the  Emanci- 
pation Proclamation,  and  that  he  was  as- 
sassinated, can  be  readily  authenticated. 

But  how  can  any  amount  of  evidence 
satisfy  one's  self  that  Jesus  was  born  of  a 
virgin,  for  instance?  Such  a  report  or  ru- 
mor can  never  even  be  examined;  it  does 
not  lend  itself  to  evidence;  it  is  beyond  the 
sphere  of  history;  it  is  not  a  legitimate  ques- 


The  Problem  Stated  51 

tion  for  investigation.  It  belongs  to  my- 
thology. Indeed,  to  put  forth  a  report  of 
that  nature  is  to  forbid  the  use  of  evidence, 
and  to  command  forcible  acquiescence, 
which,  to  say  the  least,  is  a  very  suspicious 
circumstance,  calculated  to  hurt  rather  than 
to  help  the  Jesus  story. 

The  report  that  Jesus  was  God  is  equally 
impossible  of  verification.  How  are  we  to 
prove  whether  or  not  a  certain  person  was 
God?  Jesus  may  have  been  a  wonderful 
man,  but  is  every  wonderful  man  a  God? 
Jesus  may  have  claimed  to  have  been  a  God, 
but  is  every  one  who  puts  forth  such  a  claim 
a  God?  How,  then,  are  we  to  decide  which 
of  the  numerous  candidates  for  divine  hon- 
ors should  be  given  our  votes?  And  can  we 
by  voting  for  Jesus  make  him  a  God?  Ob- 
serve to  what  confusion  the  mere  attempt  to 
follow  such  a  report  leads  us. 

A  human  Jesus  may  or  may  not  have  ex- 
isted, but  we  are  as  sure  as  we  can  be  of 
anything,  that  a  virgin-born  God,  named 
Jesus,  such  as  we  must  believe  in  or  be  etern- 
ally lost,  is  an  impossibility — except  to 
credulity.  But  credulity  is  no  evidence  at 
all,  even  when  it  is  dignified  by  the  name  of 
faith. 


52  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

Let  us  pause  for  a  moment  to  reflect: 
The  final  argument  for  the  existence 
of  the  miraculous  Jesus,  preached  in 
church  and  Sunday-school,  these  two  thous- 
and years,  as  the  sole  savior  of  the  world, 
is  an  appeal  to  faith — the  same  to  which 
Mohammed  resorts  to  establish  his  claims, 
and  Brigham  Young  to  prove  his  revela- 
tion. There  is  no  other  possible  way  by 
which  the  virgin-birth  or  the  godhood  of  a 
man  can  be  established.  And  such  a  faith 
is  never  free,  it  is  always  maintained  by  the 
sword  now,  and  by  hell-fire  hereafter. 

Once  more,  if  it  had  been  reported  of 
Abraham  Lincoln  that  he  predicted  his  own 
assassination;  that  he  promised  some  of  his 
friends  they  would  not  die  until  they  saw" 
him  coming  again  upon  the  clouds  of 
heaven;  that  he  would  give  them  thrones  to 
sit  upon ;  that  they  could  safely  drink  deadlj^ 
poisons  in  his  name,  or  that  he  would  grant 
them  any  request  which  they  might  make, 
provided  they  asked  it  for  his  sake,  we  would 
be  justified  in  concluding  that  such  a  Lin- 
coln never  existed.  Yet  the  most  impossible 
utterances  are  put  in  Jesus'  mouth.  He  is 
made  to  say:  "Whatsoever  ye  shall  ask  in 
my  name  that  will  I  do."     No  man  who 


The  Problem  Stated  53 

makes  such  a  promise  can  keep  it.  It  is  not 
sayings  like  the  above  that  can  prove  a  man 
a  God.  Has  Jesus  kept  his  promise?  Does 
he  give  his  people  everything,  or  "whatso- 
ever" they  ask  of  him?  But,  it  is  answered, 
"Jesus  only  meant  to  say  that  he  would  give 
whatever  he  himself  considered  good  for  his 
friends  to  have."  Indeed!  Is  that  the  way 
to  crawl  out  of  a  contract?  If  that  is  what 
he  meant,  why  did  he  say  something  else? 
Could  he  not  have  said  just  what  he  meant , 
in  the  first  place?  Would  it  not  have  been 
fairer  not  to  have  given  his  friends  any  oc- 
casion for  false  expectations?  Better  to 
promise  a  little  and  do  more,  than  to  promise 
everything  and  do  nothing.  But  to  say  that 
Jesus  really  entered  into  any  such  agree- 
ment is  to  throw  doubt  upon  his  existence. 
Such  a  character  is  too  wild  to  be  real.  Only 
a  mythical  Jesus  could  virtually  hand  over 
the  government  of  the  universe  to  courtiers 
who  have  petitions  to  press  upon  his  atten- 
tion. Moreover,  if  Jesus  could  keep  his 
promise,  there  would  be  today  no  misery  in 
the  world,  no  orphans,  no  childless  mothers, 
no  shipwrecks,  no  floods,  no  famines,  no  dis- 
ease, no  crippled  children,  no  insanity,  no 
wars,  no  crime,  no  wrong !  Have  not  a  thou- 


54  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

sand,  thousand  prayers  been  offered  in 
Jesus'  name  against  every  evil  which  has 
ploughed  the  face  of  our  earth?  Have  these 
prayers  been  answered?  Then  why  is  there 
discontent  in  the  world?  Can  the  followers 
of  Jesus  move  mountains,  drink  deadly 
poisons,  touch  serpents,  or  work  greater  mi- 
racles than  are  ascribed  to  Jesus,  as  it  was 
promised  that  they  would  do?  How  many 
self -deluded  prophets  these  extravagant 
claims  have  produced!  And  who  can  num- 
ber the  bitter  disappointments  caused  by 
such  impossible  promises? 

George  Jacob  Holyoake,  of  England, 
tells  how  in  the  days  of  utter  poverty, 
his  believing  mother  asked  the  Lord, 
again  and  again  —  on  her  knees,  with 
tears  streaming  from  her  eyes,  and  with 
absolute  faith  in  Jesus'  ability  to  keep 
His  promise, —  to  give  her  starving  chil- 
dren their  daily  bread.  But  the  more 
fervently  she  prayed  the  heavier  grew 
the  burden  of  her  life.  A  stone  or  wooden 
idol  could  not  have  been  more  indiiferent  to 
a  mother's  tears.  "My  mind  aches  as  I  think 
of  those  days,"  writes  Mr.  Holyoake.  One 
day  he  went  to  see  the  Rev.  Mr.  Cribbace, 
who  had  invited  inquirers  to  his  house.   "Do 


The  Problem  Stated  55 


you  really  believe,"  asked  young  Holyoake 
to  the  clergyman,  "that  what  we  ask  in  faith 
we  shall  receive?"  "It  never  struck  me," 
continues  JNIr.  Holyoake,  "that  the  preach- 
er's threadbare  dress,  his  half- famished  look, 
and  necessity  of  taking  up  a  collection  the 
previous  night  to  pay  expenses  showed  that 
faith  was  not  a  source  of  income  to  him.  It 
never  struck  me  that  if  help  could  be  ob- 
tained by  prayer  no  church  would  be  needy, 
no  believer  would  be  poor."  What  answer 
did  the  preacher  give  to  Holyoake's  earnest 
question  ?  The  same  which  the  preachers  of 
today  give:  "He  parried  his  answer  with 
many  words,  and  at  length  said  that  the 
promise  was  to  be  taken  with  the  provision 
that  what  we  asked  for  would  be  given,  if 
God  thought  it  for  our  good"  Why  then, 
did  not  Jesus  explain  that  important  pro- 
viso when  he  made  the  promise?  Was  Jesus 
only  making  a  half  statement,  the  other  half 
of  which  he  would  reveal  later  to  protect 
himself  against  disappointed  petitioners. 
But  he  said:  "If  ye  ask  anything  in  my 
name,  I  will  do  it,"  and  "If  it  were  not  so, 
I  would  have  told  you."  Did  he  not  mean 
just  what  he  said?  The  truth  is  that  no 
historical  person  in  his  senses  ever  made  such 


56  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

extraordinary,  such  impossible  promises, 
and  the  report  that  Jesus  made  them  only 
goes  to  confirm  that  their  author  is  only  a 
legendary  being. 

When  this  truth  dawned  upon  Mr.  Holy- 
oake  he  ceased  to  petition  Heaven,  which 
was  like  "dropping  a  bucket  into  an  empty 
well,"  and  began  to  look  elsewhere  for  help.* 
The  world  owes  its  advancement  to  the 
fact  that  men  no  longer  look  to  Heaven  for 
help,  but  help  themselves.  Self -effort,  and 
not  prayer,  is  the  remedy  against  ignorance, 
slavery,  poverty,  and  moral  degradation. 
Fortunately,  by  holding  up  before  us  an  im- 
possible Jesus,  with  his  impossible  promises, 
the  churches  have  succeeded  only  in  post- 
poning, but  not  in  preventing,  the  progress 
of  man.  This  is  a  compliment  to  human 
nature,  and  it  is  well  earned.  It  is  also  a 
promise  that  in  time  humanity  will  be  com- 
pletely emancipated  from  every  phantom 
which  in  the  past  has  scared  it  into  silence 
or  submission,  and 

"A  loftier  race  than  e'er  the  world 
Hath  known  shall  rise 
With  flame  of  liberty  in  their  souls, 
And  light  of  science  in  their  eyes." 


•Bygones  Worth  Remembering. — George  Jacob  Holyoake. 


Ay»LAC<9Air-irMCs>CKei'>'K^irK>; 
e»'>*O>fX0lO»>l5A'*T0»»*  OCSwiOlC 
QrA^fiOT-iAcopA.Ti*«i  KATGXCo»< 
K  AJO T  CY MOpCO  iM  OTI  TT0/*.AA€| 
TAlTPi6MCAp«K>«lA'nOT«CA>* 
rriCn#MWTAi^^*.€eOAO^  K/»eA. 
ntf^>>.T»<cnoiMTi»<:MCiNNeptit  ^a^ 
^oTinCf  'TOVcnoA<Y/-*Ae€ic 

Portion   of   Manuscript    Supposed   to   Be   Copy   of 
Lost  Originals. 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCUMENTS 

The  documents  containing  the  story  of 
Jesus  are  so  unhke  those  about  Lincohi  or 
any  other  historical  character,  that  we  must 
be  doubly  vigilant  in  our  investigation. 

The  Christians  rely  mainly  on  the  four 
Gospels  for  the  historicity  of  Jesus.  But 
the  original  documents  of  which  the  books 
in  the  New  Testament  are  claimed  to  be 
faithful  copies  are  not  in  existence.  There 
is  absolutely  no  evidence  that  they  ever  were 
in  existence.  This  is  a  statement  which  can 
not  be  controverted.  Is  it  conceivable  that 
the  early  believers  lost  through  carelessness 
or  purposely  every  document  'vvTitten  by  an 
apostle,  while  guarding  vdth  all  protecting 
jealousy  and  zeal  the  writings  of  anony- 
mous persons?  Is  there  any  valid  reason 
why  the  contributions  to  Christian  literature 
of  an  inspired  apostle  should  perish  while 
those  of  a  nameless  scribe  are  preserved, 

57 


58  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

why  the  original  Gospel  of  Matthew  should 
drop  quietly  out  of  sight,  no  one  knows  how, 
while  a  supposed  copy  of  it  in  an  alien 
language  is  preserved  for  many  centuries? 
Jesus  himself,  it  is  admitted,  did  not 
wi'ite  a  single  line.  He  had  come,  ac- 
cording to  popular  belief,  to  reveal  the 
will  of  God  —  a  most  important  mission 
indeed,  and  yet  he  not  only  did  not  put 
this  revelation  in  wi'iting  during  his  life- 
time, and  with  his  own  hand,  which  it  is 
natural  to  suppose  that  a  divine  teacher, 
expressly  come  from  heaven,  would  have 
done,  but  he  left  this  all-important  duty 
to  anonymous  chroniclers,  who,  naturally, 
made  enough  mistakes  to  split  up  Christen- 
dom into  innumerable  factions.  It  is  worth 
a  moment's  pause  to  think  of  the  persecu- 
tions, the  cruel  wars,  and  the  centuries  of 
hatred  and  bitterness  which  would  have  been 
spared  our  unfortunate  humanity,  if  Jesus 
himself  had  written  down  his  message  in 
the  clearest  and  plainest  manner,  instead  of 
leaving  it  to  his  supposed  disciples  to  pub- 
Hsh  it  to  the  world,  when  he  could  no  longer 
correct  their  mistakes. 

Moreover,  not  only  did  Jesus  not  write 
himself,  but  he  has  not  even  taken  any  pains 


The  Christian  Documents  59 

to  preserve  the  writings  of  his  "apostles." 
It  is  well  known  that  the  original  manu- 
scripts, if  there  were  any,  are  nowhere  to 
be  found.  This  is  a  grave  matter.  We  have 
only  supposed  copies  of  supposed  original 
manuscripts.  Who  copied  them?  When 
were  they  copied?  How  can  we  be  sure 
that  these  copies  are  reliable?  And  why  are 
there  thousands  upon  thousands  of  various 
readings  in  these  numerous  supposed  cop- 
ies? What  means  have  we  of  deciding 
which  version  or  reading  to  accept?  Is  it 
possible  that  as  the  result  of  Jesus'  advent 
into  our  world,  we  have  only  a  basketful 
of  nameless  and  dateless  copies  and  docu- 
ments? Is  it  conceivable,  I  ask,  that  a  God 
would  send  his  Son  to  us,  and  then  leave  us 
to  wander  through  a  pile  of  dusty  manu- 
scripts to  find  out  why  He  sent  His  Son^ 
and  what  He  taught  when  on  earth? 

The  only  answ^er  the  Christian  church  can 
give  to  this  question  is  that  the  original 
writings  were  purposely  allowed  to  perish. 
When  a  precious  document  containing  the 
testament  of  Almighty  God,  and  inscribed 
for  an  eternal  purpose  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
disappears  altogether  there  is  absolutely  no 
other  way  of  accounting  for  its  disappear- 


60  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

ance  than  by  saying,  as  we  have  suggested, 
that  its  divine  author  must  have  intention- 
ally withdrawn  it  from  circulation.  "God 
moves  in  a  mysterious  way"  is  the  last  re- 
sort of  the  believer.  This  is  the  one  argu- 
ment which  is  left  to  theology  to  fight  sci- 
ence with.  Unfortunately  it  is  an  argument 
which  would  prove  every  cult  and  "ism" 
under  the  heavens  true.  The  Mohamme- 
dan, the  Mazdaian,  and  the  Pagan  may  also 
fall  back  upon  faith.  There  is  nothing 
which  faith  can  not  cover  up  from  the  light. 
But  if  a  faith  which  ignores  evidence  be 
not  a  superstition,  what  then  is  superstition? 
I  wonder  if  the  Catholic  Church,  which 
pretends  to  believe — and  which  derives 
quite  an  income  from  the  behef — that 
God  has  miraculously  preserved  the 
wood  of  the  cross,  the  Holy  Sepulchre, 
in  Jerusalem,  the  coat  of  Jesus,  and  quite 
a  number  of  other  mementos,  can  explain 
why  the  original  manuscripts  were  lost.  I 
have  a  suspicion  that  there  were  no  "origi- 
nal" manuscripts.  I  am  not  sure  of  this, 
of  course,  but  if  nails,  bones  and  holy  places 
could  be  miraculously  preserved,  why  not 
also  manuscripts?  It  is  reasonable  to  sup- 
pose that  the  Deity  would  not  have  per- 


The  Christian  Documents  61 

mitted  the  most  important  documents  con- 
taining His  Revelation  to  drop  into  some 
hole  and  disappear,  or  to  be  gnawed  into 
dust  by  the  insects,  after  having  had  them 
written  by  special  inspiration. 

Again,  when  these  documents,  such  as  we 
find  them,  are  examined,  it  will  be  observed 
that,  even  in  the  most  elementary  intelli- 
gence which  they  pretend  to  furnish,  they 
are  hopelessly  at  variance  with  one  another. 
It  is,  for  example,  utterly  impossible  to 
reconcile  Matthew's  genealogy  of  Jesus 
with  the  one  given  by  Luke.  In  copying  the 
names  of  the  supposed  ancestors  of  Jesus, 
they  tamper  with  the  list  as  given  in  the 
book  of  Chronicles,  in  the  Old  Testament, 
and  thereby  justly  expose  themselves  to  the 
charge  of  bad  faith.  One  evangelist  says 
Jesus  was  descended  from  Solomon,  born 
of  "her  that  had  been  the  wife  of  Urias." 
It  will  be  remembered  that  David  ordered 
Urias  killed  in  a  cov/ardly  manner,  that  he 
may  marry  his  widow,  whom  he  coveted. 
According  to  Matthew,  Jesus  is  one  of  the 
offspring  of  this  adulterous  relation.  Ac- 
cording to  Luke,  it  is  not  through  Solomon, 
but  through  Nathan,  that  Jesus  is  connected 
with  the  house  of  David. 


62  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

Again,  Luke  tells  us  that  the  name  of  the 
father  of  Joseph  was  Heli;  Matthew  says  it 
was  Jacob.  If  the  writers  of  the  gospels 
were  eontemporaries  of  Joseph  they  could 
have  easily  learned  the  exact  name  of  his 
father. 

Again,  why  do  these  biographers  of  Jesus 
give  us  the  genealogy  of  Joseph  if  he  was 
not  the  father  of  Jesus?  It  is  the  genealogy 
of  Mary  which  they  should  have  given  to 
prove  the  descent  of  Jesus  from  the  house 
of  David,  and  not  that  of  Joseph.  These 
irreconcilable  differences  between  Luke, 
Matthew  and  the  other  evangelists,  go  to 
prove  that  these  authors  possessed  no  reli- 
able information  concerning  the  subjects 
they  were  writing  about.  For  if  Jesus  is  a 
historical  character,  and  these  biographers 
were  really  his  inmiediate  associates,  and 
were  inspired  besides,  how  are  we  to  explain 
their  blunders  and  contradictions  about  his 
genealogy? 

A  good  illustration  of  the  mythical  or  un- 
historical  character  of  the  New  Testament 
is  furnished  by  the  story  of  John  the  Bap- 
tist. He  is  first  represented  as  confessing 
publicly  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ;  that  he 
himself  is  not  worthy  to  unloose  the  latchet 


The  Christian  Documents  63 


of  his  shoes ;  and  that  Jesus  is  the  Lamb  of 
God,  "who  taketh  away  the  sins  of  the 
world."  John  was  also  present,  the  gospels 
say,  when  the  heavens  opened  and  a  dove 
descended  on  Jesus'  head,  and  he  heard  the 
voice  from  the  skies,  crying:  "He  is  my  be- 
loved Son,  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased." 

Is  it  possible  that,  a  few  chapters  later, 
this  same  Jolm  forgets  his  public  confes- 
sion,— the  dove  and  the  voice  from  heaven, 
— and  actually  sends  two  of  his  disciples  to 
find  out  who  this  Jesus  is.*  The  only 
way  we  can  account  for  such  strange  con- 
duct is  that  the  compiler  or  editor  in  ques- 
tion had  two  different  myths  or  stories  be- 
fore him,  and  he  wished  to  use  them  both. 

A  further  proof  of  the  loose  and  extrava- 
gant style  of  the  Gospel  writers  is  furn- 
ished by  the  concluding  verse  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel:  "There  are  also  many  other  things 
which  Jesus  did,  the  which,  if  they  should 
be  written,  every  one,  I  suppose  that  even 
the  world  itself  could  not  contain  the  books 
that  should  be  WTitten."  This  is  more  hke 
the  language  of  a  myth-maker  than  of  a 
historian.  How  much  reliance  can  we  put 
in  a  reporter  who  is  given  to  such  exaggera- 

♦Matthew  xi. 


64  The  Truth  About  Jesus 


tion?  To  say  that  the  world  itself  would  be 
too  small  to  contain  the  unreported  sayings 
and  doings  of  a  teacher  whose  public  life 
possibly  did  not  last  longer  than  a  year,  and 
whose  reported  words  and  deeds  fill  only  a 
few  pages,  is  to  prove  one's  statements  un- 
worthy of  serious  consideration. 

And  it  is  worth  our  while  to  note  also 
that  the  documents  which  have  come  down 
to  our  time  and  which  purport  to  be  the 
biographies  of  Jesus,  are  not  only  written  in 
an  alien  language,  that  is  to  say,  in  a  lan- 
guage which  was  not  that  of  Jesus  and  his 
disciples,  but  neither  are  they  dated  or 
signed.  Jesus  and  his  twelve  apostles  were 
Jews;  why  are  all  the  four  Gospels  written 
in  Greek?  If  they  were  originally  written  in 
Hebrew,  how  can  we  tell  that  the  Greek 
translation  is  accurate,  since  we  can  not  com- 
pare it  with  the  originals?  And  why  are 
these  Gospels  anonymous?  Why  are  they 
not  dated?  But  as  we  shall  say  something 
more  on  this  subject  in  the  present  volume, 
we  confine  ourselves  at  this  point  to  repro- 
ducing a  fragment  of  the  manuscript  pages 
from  which  our  Greek  Translations  have 
been  made.*    It  is  admitted  by  scholars  that 

*See  page  57. 


The  Christian  'Documents  65 

owing  to  the  difficulty  of  reading  these  an- 
cient and  imperfect  and  also  conflicting 
texts,  an  accurate  translation  is  impossible. 
But  this  is  another  way  of  saying  that  what 
the  churches  call  the  Word  of  God  is  not 
only  the  word  of  man,  but  a  very  imperfect 
word,  at  that. 

The  belief  in  Jesus,  then,  is  founded  on 
secondary  documents,  altered  and  edited  by 
various  hands;  on  lost  originals,  and  on 
anonymous  manuscripts  of  an  age  consider- 
ably later  than  the  events  therein  related — 
manuscripts  which  contradict  each  other  as 
well  as  themselves.  Such  is  clearly  and  un- 
deniably the  basis  for  the  belief  in  a  histor- 
ical Jesus.  It  was  this  sense  of  the  insuffi- 
ciency of  the  evidence  which  drove  the  mis- 
sionaries of  Christianity  to  commit  forgeries. 

If  there  was  ample  evidence  for  the  his- 
toricity of  Jesus,  why  did  his  biographers 
resort  to  forgery?  The  following  admis- 
sions by  Christian  writers  themselves  show 
the  helplessness  of  the  early  preachers  in  the 
presence  of  inquirers  who  asked  for  proofs. 
The  church  historian,  Mosheim,  writes  that, 
"The  Christian  Fathers  deemed  it  a  pious 
act    to    employ     deception    and    fraud."* 

♦Ecclesiastical  Hist.,  Vol.  I,  P.  247. 


66  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

Again,  he  says:  "The  greatest  and  most 
pious  teachers  were  nearly  all  of  them  in- 
fected with  this  leprosy."  Will  not  some 
believer  tell  us  why  forgery  and  fraud  were 
necessary  to  prove  the  historicity  of  Jesus. 
Another  historian,  Milman,  writes  that, 
"Pious  fraud  was  admitted  and  avowed"  by 
the  early  missionaries  of  Jesus.  "It  was  an 
age  of  literary  frauds,"  writes  Bishop  EUi- 
cott,  speaking  of  the  times  immediately  fol- 
lowing the  alleged  crucifixion  of  Jesus.  Dr. 
Giles  declares  that,  "There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  great  numbers  of  books  were  written 
with  no  other  purpose  than  to  deceive."  And 
it  is  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Robertson  Smith 
that,  "There  was  an  enormous  floating  mass 
of  spurious  literature  created  to  suit 
party  views."  Books  which  are  now  rejected 
as  apochryphal  were  at  one  time  received  as 
inspired,  and  books  which  are  now  believed 
to  be  infallible  were  at  one  time  regarded 
as  of  no  authority  in  the  Christian  world. 
It  certainly  is  puzzling  that  there  should  be 
a  whole  literature  of  fraud  and  forgery  in 
the  name  of  a  historical  person.  But  if 
Jesus  was  a  myth,  we  can  easily  explain  the 
legends  and  traditions  springing  up  in  his 
name. 


The  Christian  Documents  67 

The  early  followers  of  Jesus,  then,  reaHz- 
ing  the  force  of  this  objection,  did  actually 
resort  to  interpolation  and  forgery  in  order 
to  prove  that  Jesus  was  a  historical  charac- 
ter. 

One  of  the  oldest  critics  of  the  Christian 
religion  was  a  Pagan,  known  to  history  un- 
der the  name  of  Porphyry;  yet,  the  early 
Fathers  did  not  hesitate  to  tamper  even  with 
the  writings  of  an  avowed  opponent  of  their 
religion.  After  issuing  an  edict  to  destroy, 
among  others,  the  writings  of  this  philoso- 
pher, a  work,  called  Philosophy  of  Oracles, 
was  produced,  in  which  the  author  is  made 
to  write  almost  as  a  Christian ;  and  the  name 
of  Porphyry  was  signed  to  it  as  its  author. 
St.  Augustine  was  one  of  the  first  to  reject 
it  as  a  forgery.*  A  more  astounding  in- 
vention than  this  alleged  work  of  a  heathen 
bearing  witness  to  Christ  is  difficult  to  pro- 
duce. Do  these  forgeries,  these  apocryphal 
writings,  these  interpolations,  freely  admit- 
ted to  have  been  the  prevailing  practice  of 
the  early  Christians,  help  to  prove  the  exist- 
ence of  Jesus?  And  when  to  this  wholesale 
manufacture  of  doubtful  evidence  is  added 
the    terrible    vandalism    which    nearly    de- 

*Geo.  W.  Foota.     Crimes  of  Christianity, 


68  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

stroyed  every  great  Pagan  classic,  we  can 
form  an  idea  of  the  desperate  means  to 
which  the  early  Christians  resorted  to  prove 
that  Jesus  was  not  a  myth.  It  all  goes  to 
show  how  difficult  it  is  to  make  a  man  out 
of  a  myth. 


The    Goddess    Mother    in    the 
Crrecian  Pantheon. 


VIRGIN  BIRTHS 

Stories  of  gods  born  of  virgins  are  to  be 
found  in  nearly  every  age  and  country. 
There  have  been  many  virgin  mothers,  and 
Mary  with  her  child  is  but  a  recent  version 
of  a  very  old  and  universal  myth.  In  China 
and  India,  in  Babylonia  and  Egypt,  in 
Greece  and  Rome,  * 'divine"  beings  selected 
from  among  the  daughters  of  men  the  pur- 
est and  most  beautiful  to  serve  them  as  a 
means  of  entrance  into  the  world  of  mortals. 
Wishing  to  take  upon  themselves  the  human 
form,  while  retaining  at  the  same  time  their 

69 


70  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

"divinity,"  this  compromise — of  an  earthly 
mother  with  a  "divine"  father — was  ef- 
fected. In  the  form  of  a  swan  Jupiter  ap- 
proached Leda,  as  in  the  guise  of  a  dove, 
or  a  ParacletuSj  Jehovah  "overshadowed" 
Mary. 

A  nymph  bathing  in  a  river  in  China  is 
touched  by  a  lotus  plant,  and  the  divine  Fohi 
is  born. 

In  Siam,  a  wandering  sunbeam  caresses  a 
girl  in  her  teens,  and  the  great  and  wonder- 
ful deliverer,  Codom,  is  born.  In  the  life 
of  Buddlia  we  read  that  he  descended  on  his 
mother  Maya,  "in  likeness  as  the  heavenly 
queen,  and  entered  her  womb,"  and  was 
born  from  her  right  side,  to  save  the 
world."*  In  Greece,  the  young  god  Apollo 
visits  a  fair  maid  of  Athens,  and  a  Plato  is 
ushered  into  the  world. 

In  ancient  Mexico,  as  well  as  in  Baby- 
lonia, and  in  modern  Corea,  as  in  modern 
Palestine,  as  in  the  legends  of  all  lands,  vir- 
gins gave  birth  and  became  divine  mothers.* 

But  the  real  home  of  virgin  births  is  the 
land  of  the  Nile.  Eighteen  hundred  years 
before  Christ,  we  find  carved  on  one  of  the 

♦Stories  of  Virgin  Births.  Reference:  Lord  Macartney.  Voy- 
age dans  'interview  de  la  Chine  et  en  Tartarie.  Vol.  I,  P.  48. 
See  also  Les  Vierges  Meres  et  les  Naissance  Miraculeuse.  P. 
Saintyves.     P.  19.  etc. 


Virgin  Births  71 


walls  of  the  great  temple  of  Luxor  a  picture 
of  the  annunciation,  conception  and  birth  of 
KingAmunothph  III,  an  almost  exact  copy 
of  the  annunciation,  conception  and  birth  of 
the  Christian  God.  Of  course  no  one  will 
think  of  maintaining  that  the  Egyptians 
borrowed  the  idea  from  the  Catholics  nearly 
two  thousand  years  before  the  Christian  era. 
"The  story  in  the  Gospel  of  Luke,  the  first 
and  second  chapters  is,"  says  Malvert,  "a  re- 
production, 'point  by  point,'  of  the  story 
in  stone  of  the  miraculous  birth  of  Amun- 
othph."* 

Sharpe  in  his  Egyptian  Mythology,  page 
19,  gives  the  following  description  of  the 
Luxor  picture,  quoted  by  G.  W.  Foote  in 
his  Bible  Romances,  page  126:  "In  this  pic- 
ture we  have  the  annunciation,  the  concep- 
tion, the  birth  and  the  adoration,  as  de- 
scribed in  the  first  and  second  chapters  of 
Luke's  Gospel."  Massey  gives  a  more  mi- 
nute description  of  the  Luxor  picture.  "The 
first  scene  on  the  left  hand  shows  the  god 
Taht,  the  divine  Word  or  Loges,  in  the  act 
of  hailing  the  virgin  queen,  announcing  to 
her  that  she  is  to  give  birth  to  a  son.    In  the 


*Science  and  Religion       P.   96. 


72 


Virgin  Births  73 


second  scene  the  god  Kneph  (assisted  by 
Hathor)  gives  life  to  her.  This  is  the  Holy- 
Ghost,  or  Spirit  that  causes  conception.  .  .  . 
Next  the  mother  is  seated  on  the  midwife's 
stool,  and  the  child  is  supported  in  the  hands 
of  one  of  the  nurses.  The  fourth  scene  is 
that  of  the  adoration.  Here  the  child  is  en- 
throned, receiving  homage  from  the  gods 
and  gifts  from  men."*  The  picture  on  the 
wall  of  the  Luxor  temple,  then,  is  one  of  the 
sources  to  which  the  anonj^-mous  writers  of 
the  Gospels  went  for  their  miraculous  story. 
It  is  no  wonder  they  suppressed  their  own 
identity  as  well  as  the  source  from  which 
they  borrowed  their  material. 

Not  only  the  idea  of  a  virgin  mother,  but 
all  the  other  miraculous  events,  such  as  the 
stable  cradle,  the  guiding  star,  the  massacre 
of  the  children,  the  flight  to  Egypt,  and  the 
resurrection  and  bodily  ascension  toward  the 
clouds,  have  not  only  been  borrowed,  but  are 
even  scarcely  altered  in  the  New  Testament 
story  of  Jesus. 

That  the  early  Christians  borrowed  the 
legend  of  Jesus  from  earthly  sources  is  too 
evident  to  be  even  questioned.  Gerald  Mas- 
sc}'-  in  his  great  work  on  Egyptian  origins 

♦Natural  Genesis.     Massey,  Vol.  II,  P.  398. 


74 


The  Truth  About  Jesus 


demonstrates  the  identity  of  Mary,  the 
mother  of  Jesus,  with  Isis,  the  mother  of 
Horus.  He  says:  "The  most  ancient,  gold- 
bedizened,  smoke-stained  Byzantine  pictures 


The  Nativity  of  the  God  Dionysius,  Museum  of  Naples. 

of  the  virgin  and  child  represent  the  myth- 
ical mother  as  Isis,  and  not  as  a  human 
mother  of  Nazareth.*  Science  and  research 
have  made  this  fact  so  certain  that,  on  the 
one  hand  ignorance,  and  on  the  other,  in- 
terest only,  can  continue  to  claim  inspiration 
for  the  authors  of  the  undated  and  unsigned 
fragmentary  documents  which  pass  for  the 
Word  of  God.  If,  then,  Jesus  is  stripped  of 
all  the  borrowed  legends  and  miracles  of 
which  he  is  the  subject;  and  if  we  also  take 
away  from  him  all  the  teachings  which  col- 
lected from  Jewish  and  Pagan  sources  have 
been  attributed  to  him — what  will  be 
left  of  him?  That  the  ideas  put  in  his 
mouth  have  been  culled  and  compiled  from 

*Vol.  ii,  P.  487. 


Virgin  Births  75 


other  sources  is  as  demonstrable  as  the  Pa- 
gan origin  of  the  legends  related  of  him. 

Nearly  every  one  of  the  dogmas  and  cere- 
monies in  the  Christian  cult  were  borrowed 
from  other  and  older  religions.  The  resur- 
rection myth,  the  ascension,  the  eucharisty, 
baptism,  worship  by  kneeling  or  prostra- 
tion, the  folding  of  the  hands  on  the  breast, 
the  ringing  of  bells  and  the  burning  of  in- 
cense, the  vestments  and  vessels  used  in 
church,  the  candles,  "holy"  water, — even  the 
M^ord  Mass  J  were  all  adopted  and  adapted  by 
the  Christians  from  the  religions  of  the  an- 
cients. The  Trinity  is  as  much  Pagan,  as 
much  Indian  or  Buddhist,  as  it  is  Christian. 
The  idea  of  a  Son  of  God  is  as  old  as  the 
oldest  cult.  The  sun  is  the  son  of  heaven  in 
all  primitive  faiths.  The  physical  sun  be- 
comes in  the  course  of  evolution,  the  Son  of 
Righteousness,  or  the  Son  of  God,  and 
heaven  is  personified  as  the  Father  on  High. 
The  halo  around  the  head  of  Jesus,  the 
horns  of  the  older  deities,  the  rays  of  light 
radiating  from  the  heads  of  Hindu  and  Pa- 
gan gods  are  incontrovertible  evidence  that 
all  gods  were  at  one  time — the  sun  in  heaven. 


^  _  11        III 

T     ?      W    T^       II       lit 


!l 

Prehistoric  Crosses  Discovered  in  Pagan  Sepulchres   (Italy). 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  CROSS 

Only  the  uninformed,  of  whom,  we  re- 
gret to  say,  there  are  a  great  many,  and  who 
are  the  main  support  of  the  old  religions, 
still  believe  that  the  cross  originated  with 
Christianity.  Like  the  dogmas  of  the  Trin- 
ity, the  virgin  birth,  and  the  resurrection,  the 
sign  of  the  cross  or  the  cross  as  an  emblem 
or  a  symbol  was  borrowed  from  the  more 
ancient  faiths  of  Asia.  Perhaps  one  of  the 
most  important  discoveries  which  primitive 
man  felt  obliged  never  to  be  ungrateful 
enough  to  forget,  was  the  production  of  fire 
by  the  friction  of  two  sticks  placed  across 
each  other  in  the  form  of  a  cross.  As  early 
as  the  stone  age  we  find  the  cross  carved  on 
monuments  which  have  been  dug  out  of  the 
earth  and  which  can  be  seen  in  the  museums 
of  Europe.  On  the  coins  of  later  genera- 
tions as  well  as  on  the  altars  of  prehistoric 
times  we  find  the  "sacred"  symbol  of  the 
cross.  The  dead  in  ancient  cemeteries  slept 
under  the  cross  as  they  do  in  our  day  in 
Catholic  churchyards. 

76 


The  Origin  of  the  Cross 


77 


In  ancient  Egypt,  as  in  modern  China, 
India,  Corea,  the  cross  is  venerated  by  the 
masses  as  a  charm  of  great  power.  In  the 
Musee  Guimet,  in  Paris,  we  have  seen  speci- 
mens of  pre-Christian  crosses.  In  the  Lou- 
vre Museum  one  of  the  "heathen"  gods 
carries  a  cross  on  his  head.  During  his  sec- 
ond journey  to  New  Zealand,  Cook  was  sur- 
prised to  find  the  natives  marking  the  graves 


\\ym\m\\\miu(U'{(i(((f(r 


1 


m 


I 


1 


House  of  Goodness,  with  Cross. 
Egyptian,   2000   B.   C. 


of  their  dead  with  the  cross.  We  saw,  in 
the  Museum  of  St.  Germain,  an  ancient 
divinity  of  Gaul,  before  the  conquest  of 
the  country  by  Julius  Caesar,  wearing  a  gar- 
ment on  which  was  woven  a  cross.  In  the 
same  museum  an  ancient  altar  of  Gaul 
under  Paganism,  had  a  cross  carved  upon 
it.  That  the  cross  was  not  adopted  by  the 
followers  af  Tesus  until  a  later  date  may 


78 


The  Truth  About  Jesus 


Pagan  Priest   of  Herculaneum 
"Wearing  the   Cross. 

be  inferred  from  the  silence  of  the  earher 
gospels,  Matthew,  Mark  and  Luke,  on  the 
details  of  the  crucifixion,  which  is  more  fully 
developed  in  the  later  gospel  of  John.  The 
first  three  evangelists  say  nothing  about  the 
nails  or  the  blood,  and  give  the  impression 
that  he  was  hanged.  Writing  of  the  two 
thieves  who  were  sentenced  to  receive  the 
same  punishment,  Luke  says,  "One  of  the 
malefactors  that  was  hanged  with  him."  The 
idea  of  a  bleeding  Christ,  such  as  we  see  on 
crosses  in  Catholic  churches,  is  not  present  in 
these  earlier  descriptions  of  the  crucifixion; 


The  Origin  of  the  Cross  79 


a 

9 
0 

0 

«*^      • 

ft     B 


^>H — 0  *s 

Cross  of  the  Chinese  IT     ' 

Emperor  Fou-Hi,2953  9    Q 

Years  Before  Christ.  9 


9 
ft  • 

I  » 

«  h 

Discovered  in  Newgrange,  IreUnd. 
An  Ancient  Pagan   Cross, 

the  Christians  of  the  time  of  Origin  were 
called  "the  followers  of  the  god  who  was 
hanged."  In  the  fourth  gospel  we  see  the 
beginnings  of  the  legend  of  the  cross,  of 
Jesus  carrying  or  falling  under  the  weight 
of  the  cross,  of  the  nail  prints  in  his  hands 
and  feet,  of  the  spear  drawing  the  blood 
from  his  side  and  smearing  his  body.  Of  all 
this,  the  first  three  evangelists  are  quite  ig- 
norant. 

Let  it  be  further  noted  that  it  was  not 
until  eight  hundred  years  after  the  sup- 


80 


The  Truth  About  Jesus 


posed  crucifixion  that  Jesus  is  seen  in  the 
form  of  a  human  being  on  the  cross.  Not 
in  any  of  the  paintings  on  the  ancient  cata- 
combs is  found  a  crucified  Christ.  The  ear- 
liest cross  bearing  a  human  being  is  of  the 
eighth  century.  For  a  long  time  a  lamb 
with  a  cross,  or  on  a  cross,  was  the  Christian 
symbol,  and  it  is  a  lamb  which  we  see  en- 


Used  by  a  Priest  of  Bacchus, 
Showing    the    Cross. 


Engraving  of  the  XI   Century. 


tombed  in  the  "holy  sepulchre."  In  more 
than  one  mosaic  of  early  Christian  times, 
it  is  not  Jesus,  but  a  lamb,  which  is  bleeding 
for  the  salvation  of  the  world.  How  a  lamb 
came  to  play  so  important  a  role  in  Chris- 
tianity is  variously  explained.  The  similar- 
ity between  the  name  of  the  Hindu  god, 
Agni  and  the  meaning  of  the  same  word  in 


The  Origin  of  the  Cross 


81 


Latin,  which  is  a  lamb,  is  one  theory.  An- 
other is  that  a  ram,  one  of  the  signs  of  the 
zodiac,  often  counfounded  by  the  ancients 
with  a  lamb,  is  the  origin  of  the  popular 


Lamb    on    Cross. 


From  a  Picture  in 
the  Church  of  Genest. 
A  Lamb  Carrying  the 
Cross. 


The  Lamb  and  the 
Cross,  IX  Century. 


reverence  for  the  lamb  as  a  symbol — a  rever- 
ence which  all  religions  based  on  sun-wor- 
ship shared.  The  lamb  in  Christianity  takes 
away  the  sins  of  the  people,  just  as  the 
paschal  lamb  did  in  the  Old  Testament,  and 
earlier  still,  just  as  it  did  in  Babylonia. 

To  the  same  effect  is  the  following  letter 
of  the  bishop  of  Mende,  in  France,  bearing 
date  of  the  year  800  A.  D.:  "Because  the 
darkness  has  disappeared,  and  because  also 
Christ  is  a  real  man.  Pope  Adrian  com- 
mands us  to  paint  him  under  the  form  of 
a  man.  The  lamb  of  God  must  not  any 
longer  be  painted  on  a  cross,  but  after  a 
human  form  has  been  placed  on  the  cross, 
there  is  no  objection  to  have  a  lamb  also 
represented  with  it,  either  at  the  foot  of  the 


82  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

cross  or  on  the  opposite  side."*  We  leave 
it  to  our  readers  to  draw  the  necessary  con- 
clusions from  the  above  letter.  How  did  a 
lamb  hold  its  place  on  the  cross  for  eight 
hundred  years?  If  Jesus  was  really  cruci- 
fied, and  that  fact  was  a  matter  of  history, 
why  did  it  take  eight  hundred  years  for  a 
Christian  bishop  to  write,  "now  that  Christ 
is  a  real  man,"  etc.?  Today,  it  would  be 
considered  a  blasphemy  to  place  a  lamb  on 
a  cross. 

On  the  tombstones  of  Christians  of  the 
fourth  century  are  pictures  representing, 
not  Jesus,  but  a  lamb,  working  the  miracles 
mentioned  in  the  gospels,  such  as  multiply- 
ing the  loaves  and  fishes,  and  raising  Laza- 
rus from  the  dead. 


Mosaic   of   St.   Prax-  The    Lamb  The  Lamb  Multiply- 

edes,  V  Century,  Show-    Slowly    Becoming    ing     the     Loaves     and 
ing  the  Lamb  Christ.  Human.  Fishes,      IV      Century 

Sarcophagus. 

The  first  representations  of  a  human 
form  on  the  cross  differ  considerably  from 
those   which  prevail   at  the   present  time. 

•Translated  from  the  French  of  Didron.     Quoted  by  Malrert. 


The  Origin  of  the  Cross  83 


The  Lamb  Resurrecting  Lazarus, 
rv   Century   Sarcophagus. 

While  the  figure  on  the  modern  cross  is  al- 
most naked,  those  on  the  earlier  ones  are 
clothed  and  completely  covered.  Wearing  a 
flowing  tunic,  Jesus  is  standing  straight 
against  the  cross  with  his  arms  outstretched, 
as  though  in  the  act  of  delivering  an  ad- 
dress. Frequently,  at  his  feet,  on  the  cross, 
there  is  still  painted  the  figure  of  a  lamb, 
which  by  and  by,  he  is  going  to  replace  alto- 
gether. Gradually  the  robe  disappears  from 
the  crucified  one,  until  we  see  him  crucified, 
as  in  the  adjoining  picture,  with  hardly  any 
clothes  on,  and  wearing  an  expression  of 
great  agony. 


Modern  Christ. 


84 


Christ   and    the    Twelve   Apostles,    Carrying    Swastikas   and    Solar 
Discs  Instead  of  the  Cross.     Sarcophagus,   Milan. 


THE  SILENCE  OF  PROFANE 
WRITERS 

In  all  historical  matters,  we  cannot 
ask  for  more  than  a  reasonable  assurance 
concerning  any  question.  In  fact,  absolute 
certainty  in  any  branch  of  human  knowl- 
edge, with  the  exception  of  mathematics, 
perhaps,  is  impossible.  We  are  finite  beings, 
limited  in  all  our  powers,  and,  hence,  our 
conclusions  are  not  only  relative,  but  they 
should  ever  be  held  subject  to  correction. 
When  our  law  courts  send  a  man  to  the 
gallows,  they  can  have  no  more  than  a  rea- 
sonable assurance  that  he  is  guilty;  when 

85 


86  The  Truth  'About  Jesus 

they  acquit  him,  they  can  have  no  more  than 
a  reasonable  assurance  that  he  is  innocent. 
Positive  assurance  is  unattainable.  The 
dogmatist  is  the  only  one  who  claims  to  pos- 
sess absolute  certainty.  But  his  claim  is  no 
more  than  a  groundless  assumption.  When, 
therefore,  we  learn  that  Josephus,  for  in- 
stance, who  lived  in  the  same  country  and 
about  the  same  time  as  Jesus,  and  wrote  an 
extensive  history  of  the  men  and  events  of 
his  day  and  country,  does  not  mention  Jesus, 
except  by  interpolation,  which  even  a  Chris- 
tian clergyman.  Bishop  Warburton,  calls  "a 
rank  forgery,  and  a  very  stupid  one,  too," 
we  can  be  reasonably  sure  that  no  such  Jesus 
as  is  described  in  the  New  Testament,  lived 
about  the  same  time  and  in  the  same  country 
with  Josephus. 

The  failure  of  such  a  historian  as  Jose- 
phus to  mention  Jesus  tends  to  make  the 
existence  of  Jesus  at  least  reasonably  doubt- 
ful. 

Few  Christians  now  place  any  reliance 
upon  the  evidence  from  Josephus.  The 
early  Fathers  made  this  Jew  admit  that 
Jesus  was  the  Son  of  God.  Of  course,  the 
admission  was  a  forgery.  De  Quincey  says 
the  passage  is  known  to  be  "a  forgery  by 


The  Silence  of  Profane  Writers      87 

all  men  not  lunatics."  Of  one  other  sup- 
posed reference  in  Josephus,  Canon  Farrar 
says:  "This  passage  was  early  tampered 
with  by  the  Christians."  The  same  writer 
says  this  of  a  third  passage:  "Respecting 
the  third  passage  in  Josephus,  the  only  ques- 
tion is  whether  it  be  partly  or  entirely  spuri- 
ous." Lardner,  the  great  English  theolo- 
gian, was  the  first  man  to  prove  that  Jo- 
sephus was  a  poor  witness  for  Christ. 

In  examining  the  evidence  from  profane 
writers  we  must  remember  that  the  silence 
of  one  contemporary  author  is  more  impor- 
tant than  the  supposed  testimony  of  an- 
other. There  was  living  in  the  same  time 
with  Jesus  a  great  Jewish  scholar  by  the 
name  of  Philo.  He  was  an  Alexandrian 
Jew,  and  he  visited  Jerusalem  while  Jesus 
was  teaching  and  working  miracles  in  the 
holy  city.  Yet  Philo  in  all  his  works  never 
once  mentions  Jesus.  He  does  not  seem  to 
have  heard  of  him.  He  could  not  have  helped 
mentioning  him  if  he  had  really  seen  him 
or  heard  of  him.  In  one  place  in  liis  works 
Philo  is  describing  the  difference  between 
two  Jewish  names,  Hosea  and  Jesus.  Jesus, 
he  says,  means  saviour  of  the  people.  What 
a  fine  opportunity  for  him  to  have  added 


88  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

that,  at  that  very  time,  there  was  Hving  in 
Jerusalem  a  saviour  by  the  name  of  Jesus,  or 
one  supposed  to  be,  or  claiming  to  be,  a  sa- 
viour. He  could  not  have  helped  mentioning 
Jesus  if  he  had  ever  seen  or  heard  of  him. 

We  have  elsewhere  referred  to  the  signifi- 
cant silence  of  the  Pagan  historians  and  mis- 
cellaneous writers  on  the  wonderful  events 
narrated  in  the  New  Testament.  But  a  few 
remarks  may  be  added  here  in  explanation 
of  the  supposed  testimony  of  Tacitus. 

The  quotation  from  Tacitus  is  an  impor- 
tant one.  That  part  of  the  passage  which 
concerns  us  is  something  like  this:  "They 
have  their  denomination  from  Chrestus,  put 
to  death  as  a  criminal  by  Pontius  Pilate  dur- 
ing the  reign  of  Tiberius."  I  wish  to  say 
in  the  first  place  that  this  passage  is  not  in 
the  History  of  Tacitus,  known  to  the  an- 
cients, but  in  his  Annals,  which  is  not  quoted 
by  any  ancient  writer.  The  Annals  of  Ta- 
citus were  not  known  to  be  in  existence  until 
the  year  1468.  An  English  writer,  Mr. 
Ross,  has  undertaken,  in  an  interesting  vol- 
ume, to  show  that  the  Annals  were  forged 
by  an  Italian,  Bracciolini.  I  am  not  com- 
petent to  say  whether  or  not  Mr.  Ross 
proves  his  point.    But  is  it  conceivable  that 


The  Silence  of  Profane  Writers      89 

the  early  Christians  would  have  ignored  so 
valuable  a  testimony  had  they  known  of  its 
existence,  and  would  they  not  have  known 
of  it  had  it  really  existed?  The  Chris- 
tian Fathers,  who  not  only  collected 
assiduously  all  that  they  could  use  to 
establish  the  reality  of  Jesus — but  who  did 
not  hesitate  even  to  forge  passages,  to  in- 
vent documents,  and  also  to  destroy  the 
testimony  of  witnesses  unfavorable  to  their 
cause — would  have  certainly  used  the  Ta- 
citus passage  had  it  been  in  existence  in  their 
day.  Not  one  of  the  Christian  Fathers  in 
his  controversy  with  the  unbelievers  has 
quoted  the  passage  from  Tacitus,  which  pas- 
sage is  the  church's  strongest  proof  of  the 
historicity  of  Jesus,  outside  the  gospels. 

But,  to  begin  with,  this  pasisage  has  the 
appearance,  at  least,  of  being  penned  by  a 
Christian.  It  speaks  of  such  persecutions 
of  the  Christians  in  Rome  which  contradict 
all  that  we  know  of  Roman  civilization.  The 
abuse  of  Christians  in  the  same  passage  may 
have  been  introduced  purposely  to  cover  up 
the  identity  of  the  writer.  The  terrible  out- 
rages against  the  Christians  mentioned  in 
the  text  from  Tacitus  are  supposed  to  have 
taken  place  in  the  year  64  A.  D.    Accord- 


90  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

ing  to  the  New  Testament,  Paul  was  in 
Rome  from  the  year  63  to  the  year  65,  and 
must,  therefore,  have  been  an  eye-witness 
of  the  persecution  under  Nero.  Let  me 
quote  from  the  Bible  to  show  that  there 
could  have  been  no  such  persecution  as  the 
Tacitus  passage  describes.  The  last  verse 
in  the  book  of  Acts  reads:  "And  he  (Paul) 
abode  two  whole  years  in  his  own  hired 
dwelling,  and  received  all  that  went  in  unto 
him,  preaching  the  kingdom  of  God,  and 
teaching  things  concerning  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  with  all  boldness,  none  forbidding 
him/'  How  is  this  picture  of  peace  and 
tranquility  to  be  reconciled  with  the  charge 
that  the  Romans  rolled  up  the  Christians  in 
straw  mats  and  burned  them  to  illuminate 
the  streets  at  night,  and  also  that  the  lions 
were  let  loose  upon  the  disciples  of  Jesus? 
Moreover,  it  is  generally  known  that  the 
Romans  were  indifferent  to  religious  propa- 
ganda, and  never  persecuted  any  sect  or 
party  in  the  name  of  religion.  In  Rome,  the 
Jews  were  free  to  be  Jews;  why  should  the 
Jewish  Christians — and  the  early  Christians 
were  Jews — have  been  thrown  to  the  lions? 
In  all  probability  the  persecutions  were 
much  milder  than  the  Tacitus  passage  de- 


The  Silence  of  Profane  Writers      91 

scribes,  and  politics  was  the  real  cause. 

Until  not  very  long  ago,  it  was  univers- 
ally believed  that  William  Tell  was  a  his- 
torical character.  But  it  is  now  proven  be- 
yond any  reasonable  doubt,  that  Tell  and 
his  apple  are  altogether  mythical.  Notwith- 
standing that  a  great  poet  has  made  him 
the  theme  of  a  powerful  drama,  and  a  great 
composer  devoted  one  of  his  operas  to  his 
heroic  achievements;  notwithstanding  also 
that  the  Swiss  show  the  crossbow  with  which 
he  is  supposed  to  have  shot  at  the  apple  on 
his  son's  head — he  is  now  admitted  to  be 
only  a  legendary  hero.  The  principal  ar- 
guments which  have  led  the  educated  world 
to  revise  its  views  concerning  William  Tell 
are  that,  the  Swiss  historians,  Faber  and 
Hamurbin,  who  lived  shortly  after  the 
"hero,"  and  who  wrote  the  history  of  their 
country,  as  Josephus  did  that  of  his,  do  not 
mention  Tell.  Had  such  a  man  existed  be- 
fore their  time,  they  could  not  have  failed 
to  refer  to  him.  Their  complete  silence  is 
damaging  beyond  help  to  the  historicity  of 
Tell.  Neither  does  the  historian,  who  was 
an  eye  witness  of  the  battle  of  Morgarten 
in  1315,  mention  the  name  of  Tell.  The 
Zurich  Chronicle  of  1497,  also  omits  to  re- 


92  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

fer  to  his  story.  In  the  accounts  of  the 
struggle  of  the  Swiss  against  Austria, 
which  drove  the  former  into  rebelhon  and 
ultimate  independence,  Tell's  name  cannot 
be  found.  Yet  all  these  arguments  are  not 
half  so  damaging  to  the  William  Tell  story, 
as  the  silence  of  Josephus  is  to  the  Jesus 
story.  Jesus  was  supposed  to  have  worked 
greater  wonders  and  to  have  created  a  wider 
sensation  than  Tell;  therefore,  it  is  more 
difficult  to  explain  the  silence  of  historians 
like  Josephus,  Pliny  and  Quintilian;  or  of 
philosophers  like  Philo,  Seneca  and 
Epictetus,  concerning  Jesus,  than  to  ex- 
plain the  silence  of  the  Swiss  chroniclers 
concerning  Tell. 


THE  JESUS  STORY  A  RELIGIOUS 
DRAMA 

We  have  now  progressed  far  enough  in 
our  investigation  to  pause  a  moment  for  re- 
flection before  we  proceed  any  further.  I 
am  conscious  of  no  intentional  misrepresen- 
tation or  suppression  of  the  facts  relating 
to  the  question  in  hand.  If  I  have  erred 
through  ignorance,  I  shall  correct  any  mis- 
take I  may  have  made,  if  some  good  reader 
will  take  the  trouble  to  enlighten  me.  I  am 
also  satisfied  that  I  have  not  commanded 
the  evidence,  but  have  allowed  the  evidence 
to  command  me.  I  am  not  interested  in 
either  proving  or  disproving  the  existence 
of  the  New-Testament  Jesus.  I  am  not  an 
advocate,  I  am  rather  an  umpire,  who  hears 
the  evidence  and  pronounces  his  decision  ac- 
cordingly. Let  the  lawyers  or  the  advo- 
cates argue  pro  and  con.  I  only  weigh, — 
and  I  am  sure,  impartially, — the  evidence 
which  the  witnesses  offer.  We  have  heard 
and  examined  quite  a  number  of  these,  and, 
I,  at  least,  am  compelled  to  say,  that  unless 
stronger  evidence  be  forthcoming,  a  histor- 
ical Jesus  has  not  been  proven  by  the  evi- 
dence thus  far  taken  in.  This  does  not  mean 
that  there  is  no  evidence  whatever  that  Jesus 

93 


94  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

was  a  real  existence,  but  that  the  evidence  is 
not  enough  to  prove  it. 

To  condemn  or  to  acquit  a  man  in  a  court 
of  law,  there  must  not  only  be  evidence,  but 
enough  of  it  to  justify  a  decision.  There 
is  some  evidence  for  almost  any  imaginable 
proposition;  but  that  is  not  enough.  Not 
only  does  the  evidence  offered  to  prove 
Jesus'  historicity,  already  examined,  fail 
to  give  this  assurance,  but,  on  the  contrary, 
it  lends  much  support  to  the  opposite 
supposition,  namely,  that  in  all  probability, 
Jesus  was  a  myth — even  as  Mithra,  Osiris, 
Isis,  Hercules,  Sampson,  Adonis,  Moses, 
Attis,  Hermes,  Heracles,  Apollo  of 
Tyanna,  Chrishna,  and  Indra,  were 
myths. 

The  story  of  Jesus,  we  are  constrained 
to  say,  possesses  all  the  characteristics  of  the 
religious  drama,  full  of  startling  episodes, 
thrilling  situations,  dramatic  action  and  de- 
nouement. It  reads  more  like  a  play  than 
plain  history.  From  such  evidence  as  the 
gospels  themselves  furnish,  the  conclusion 
that  he  was  no  more  than  the  principal  char- 
acter in  a  religious  play  receives  much  sup- 
port. Mystery  and  morality  plays  are  of  a 
very  ancient  origin.    In  earher  times,  almost 


The  Jesus  Story  a  Religious  Drama    95 

all  popular  instruction  was  by  means  of 
Tableaux  vivant. 

As  a  great  scenic  or  dramatic  perform- 
ance, with  Jesus  as  the  hero,  Judas  as  the 
villain — with  conspiracy  as  its  plot,  and  the 
trial,  the  resurrection  and  ascension  as  its 
finale,  the  story  is  intelligent  enough.  For 
instance,  as  the  curtain  rises,  it  discloses 
upon  the  stage  shepherds  tending  their 
flocks  in  the  green  fields  under  the  moonlit 
sky;  again,  as  the  scene  shifts,  the  clouds 
break,  the  heavens  open,  and  voices  are 
heard  from  above,  wtih  a  white-winged 
chorus  chanting  an  anthem.  The  next 
scene  suggests  a  stable  with  the  cattle  in 
their  stalls,  munching  hay.  In  a  corner  of 
the  stable,  close  to  a  manger,  imagine  a 
young  woman,  stooping  to  kiss  a  newly 
born  babe.  Anon  appear  three  bearded  and 
richly  costumed  men,  with  presents  in  their 
hands,  bowing  their  heads  in  ecstatic  adora- 
tion. Surely  enough  this  is  not  history.  It 
does  not  read  like  history.  The  element  of 
fiction  runs  through  the  entire  Gospels,  and 
is  its  warp  and  woof.  A  careful  analysis  of 
the  various  incidents  in  this  ensemble  will 
not  fail  to  convince  the  unprejudiced  reader 
that  while  they  possess  all  the  essentials  for 


96  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

dramatic  presentation,  they  lack  the  require- 
ments of  real  history. 

The  "opened-heavens,"  "angel-choirs," 
"grazing  flocks,"  "watchful  shepherds," 
"worshiping  magicians,"  "the  stable  crib," 
"the  mother  and  child,"  "the  wonderful 
star,"  "the  presents,"  "the  anthem" — all 
these,  while  they  fit  admirably  as  stage  set- 
ting, are  questionable  material  for  history. 
No  historical  person  was  ever  born  in  so 
spectacular  a  manner.  The  Gospel  account 
of  Jesus  is  an  embellished,  ornamental,  even 
sensationally  dramatic  creation  to  serve  as 
an  introduction  for  a  legendary  hero.  Simi- 
lar theatrical  furniture  has  been  used  thou- 
sands of  times  to  introduce  other  legendary 
characters.  All  the  Savior  Gods  were  born 
supernaturally.  They  were  all  half  god, 
half  man.  They  were  all  of  royal  descent. 
Miracles  and  wonders  attended  their  birth. 
Jesus  was  not  an  exception.  We  reject  as 
mythical  the  birth-stories  about  Mithra, 
and  Apollo.  Why  accept  as  history  those 
about  Jesus?  It  rests  with  the  preachers  of 
Christianity  to  show  that  while  the  god-man 
of  Persia,  or  of  Greece,  for  example,  was  a 
myth,  the  god-man  of  Palestine  is  historical. 

The  dramatic  element  is  again  plainly 


The  Jesus  Story  a  Religious  Drama    97 

seen  in  the  account  of  the  betrayal  of 
Jesus.  Jesus,  who  preaches  daily  in 
the  temples,  and  in  the  public  places; 
who  talks  to  the  multitude  on  the  mountain 
and  at  the  seaside;  who  feeds  thousands  by 
miracle;  the  report  of  whose  wonderful 
cures  has  reached  the  ends  of  the  earth,  and 
who  is  often  followed  by  such  a  crush  that 
to  reach  him  an  opening  has  to  be  made  in 
the  ceiling  of  the  house  where  he  is  stop- 
ping; who  goes  in  and  out  before  the  peo- 
ple and  is  constantly  disputing  with  the 
elders  and  leaders  of  the  nation — is,  never- 
theless, represented  as  being  so  unknown 
that  his  enemies  have  to  resort  to  the  device 
of  bribing  with  thirty  silver  coins  one  of  his 
disciples  to  point  him  out  to  them,  and  which 
is  to  be  done  by  a  kiss.  This  might  make 
a  great  scene  upon  the  stage,  but  it  is  not 
the  way  things  happen  in  life. 

Then  read  how  Jesus  is  carried  before 
Pilate  the  Roman  governor,  and  how  while 
he  is  being  tried  a  courier  rushes  in  with 
a  letter  from  Pilate's  wife  which  is  dra- 
matically torn  open  and  read  aloud  in  the 
presence  of  the  crowded  court.  The  letter, 
it  is  said,  was  about  a  dream  of  Pilate's 
wife,  in  which  some  ghost  tells  her  that 


98  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

Jesus  is  innocent,  and  that  her  husband 
should  not  proceed  against  him.  Is  this  his- 
tory? Roman  jurisprudence  had  not  de- 
generated to  that  extent  as  to  permit  the 
dreams  of  a  woman  or  of  a  man  to  influence 
the  course  of  justice.  But  this  letter  epi- 
sode was  invented  by  the  playwright — if  I 
may  use  the  phrase — to  prolong  the  dra- 
matic suspense,  to  complicate  the  situation, 
to  twist  the  plot,  and  thereby  render  the 
impression  produced  by  his  "piece"  more 
lasting.  The  letter  and  the  dream  did  not 
save  Jesus.  Pilate  was  not  influenced  by 
his  dreaming  wife.  She  dreamed  in  vain. 
In  the  next  place  we  hear  Pilate  pro- 
nouncing Jesus  guiltless;  but,  forthwith,  he 
hands  him  over  to  the  Jews  to  be  killed. 
Does  this  read  like  history?  Did  ever  a 
Roman  court  witness  such  a  trial?  To  pro- 
nounce a  man  innocent  and  then  to  say  to 
his  prosecutors:  "If  you  wish  to  kill  him, 
you  may  do  so,"  is  extraordinary  conduct. 
Then,  proceeding,  Pilate  takes  water  and 
ostentatiously  washes  his  hands,  a,  proceed- 
ing introduced  by  a  Greek  or  Latin  scribe, 
who  wished,  in  all  probability,  to  throw  the 
blame  of  the  crucifixion  entirely  upon  the 
Jews.      Pilate,    representing    the    Gentile 


The  Jesus  Story  a  Religious  Drama    99 


world,  washes  his  hands  of  the  responsibil- 
ity for  the  death  of  Jesus,  while  the  Jews 
are  made  to  say,  "His  blood  be  upon  us  and 
our  children." 

Imagine  the  clamoring,  howling  Jews, 
trampling  on  one  another,  gesticulating 
furiously,  gnashing  their  teeth,  foaming  at 
the  mouth,  and  spitting  in  one  another's 
face  as  they  shout,  "Crucify  him!  Crucify 
him!"  A  very  powerful  stage  setting,  to  be 
sure — but  it  is  impossible  to  imagine  that 
such  disorder,  such  anarchy  could  be  per- 
mitted in  any  court  of  justice.  But  think 
once  more  of  those  terrible  words  placed  in 
the  mouths  of  the  Jews,  "His  blood  be  upon 
us  and  our  children."  Think  of  a  people 
openly  cursing  themselves  and  asking  the 
whole  Christian  world  to  persecute  them 
forever — "His  blood  be  upon  us  and  our 
children/' 

Next,  the  composers  of  the  gospels  con- 
duct us  to  the  Garden  of  Gethsemane,  that 
we  may  see  there  the  hero  of  the  play  in 
his  agony,  fighting  the  great  battle  of  his 
life  alone,  with  neither  help  nor  sympathy 
from  his  distracted  followers.  He  is  shown 
to  us  there,  on  his  knees,  crying  tears  of 
blood— sobbing    and    groaning    under    the 


100  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

shadow  of  an  almost  crushing  fear.  Trem- 
blingly he  prays,  "Let  this  cup  pass  from 
me — if  it  be  possible;"  and  then,  yielding 
to  the  terror  crowding  in  upon  him,  he  sighs 
in  the  hearing  of  all  the  ages,  "The  spirit 
is  willing,  but  the  flesh  is  weak,"  precisely 
the  excuse  given  by  everybody  for  not  do- 
ing what  they  would  do  if  they  could.  Now, 
we  ask  in  all  seriousness,  is  it  likely  that  a 
God  who  had  come  down  from  heaven  pur- 
posely to  drink  that  cup  and  to  be  the  mar- 
tyr-Savior of  humanity — would  seek  to  be 
spared  the  fate  for  which  he  was  ordained 
from  all  eternity? 

The  objection  that  Jesus'  hesitation  on 
the  eve  of  the  crucifixion,  as  well  as 
his  cry  of  despair  on  the  cross,  were 
meant  to  show  that  he  was  as  human 
as  he  was  divine,  does  not  solve  the 
difficulty.  In  that  event  Jesus,  then,  was 
merely  acting — feigning  a  fear  which  he 
did  not  feel,  and  pretending  to  dread  a 
death  which  he  knew  could  not  hurt  him. 
If,  however,  Jesus  really  felt  alarmed  at 
the  approach  of  death,  how  much  braver, 
then,  were  many  of  his  followers  who  after- 
wards faced  dangers  and  tortures  far  more 
cruel  than  his  own!    We  honestly  think  that 


The  Jesus  Story  a  Religious  Drama  101 


to  have  put  in  Jesus'  mouth  the  words  above 
quoted,  and  also  to  have  represented  him 
as  closing  his  public  career  with  a  shriek 
on  the  cross:  "My  God,  my  God,  why  hast 
thou  forsaken  me?"  was  tantamount  to  an 
admission  by  the  writers  that  they  were  deal- 
ing with  a  symboHc  Christ,  an  ideal  figure, 
the  hero  of  a  play,  and  not  a  historical 
character. 

It  is  highly  dramatic,  to  be  sure,  to 
see  the  sun  darkened,  to  feel  the  whole 
earth  quaking,  to  behold  the  graves  ripped 
open  and  the  dead  reappear  in  their  shrouds 
— to  hear  the  hero  himself  tearing  his  own 
heart  with  that  cry  of  shuddering  anguish, 
"My  God!  my  God!" — but  it  is  not  history. 
If  such  a  man  as  Jesus  really  lived,  then 
his  biographers  have  only  given  us  a  carica- 
ture of  him.  However  beautiful  some  of 
the  sayings  attributed  to  Jesus,  and  what- 
ever the  source  they  may  have  been  bor- 
rowed from,  they  are  not  enough  to  prove 
his  historicity.  But  even  as  the  Ten  Com- 
mandments do  not  prove  INIoses  to  have  been 
a  historical  personage  or  the  author  of  the 
books  and  deeds  attributed  to  him,  neither 
do  the  parables  and  miracles  of  Jesus  prove 
him  to  have  once  visited  this  earth  as  a  god, 


102  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

or  to  have  even  existed  as  a  man. 

Socrates  and  Jesus!  Compare  the  quite 
natural  behavior  of  Socrates  in  prison 
with  that  of  Jesus  in  the  Garden  of 
Gethsemane.  The  Greek  sage  is  serene. 
Jesus  is  alarmed.  The  night  agony  of 
his  soul,  his  tears  of  blood,  his  pitiful  col- 
lapse when  he  prays,  "if  it  be  possible  let 
this  cup  pass  from  me," — all  this  would 
be  very  impressive  on  the  boards,  but  they 
seem  incredible  of  a  real  man  engaged  in 
saving  a  world.  Once  more  we  say  that 
the  defense  that  it  was  the  man  in  Jesus 
and  not  the  god  in  him  that  broke  down, 
would  be  unjust  to  the  memory  of  thou- 
sands of  martyrs  who  died  by  a  more  ter- 
rible death  than  that  of  Jesus.  As  else- 
where stated,  but  which  cannot  be  too 
often  emphasized,  what  man  would  not  have 
embraced  death  with  enthusiasm, — without 
a  moment's  misgiving,  did  he  think  that  by 
his  death,  death  and  sin  would  be  no  morel 
Who  would  shrink  from  a  cross  which  is 
going  to  save  millions  to  millions  added 
from  eternal  burnings.  He  must  be  a  phan- 
tom, indeed,  who  trembles  and  cries  like  a 
frightened  child  because  he  cannot  have  the 
crown  without  the  cross  I   What  a  spectacle 


The  Jesus  Story  a  Religious  Drama  103 

for  the  real  heroes  crowding  the  galleries  of 
history!  It  is  difficult  to  see  the  shrinking 
and  shuddering  Savior  of  the  world,  his  face 
bathed  in  perspiration,  blood  oozing  out  of 
his  forehead,  his  lips  pale,  his  voice  break- 
ing into  a  shriek,  "IMy  God,  my  God,  why 
hast  thou  forsaken  me!" — it  is  difficult  to 
witness  all  this  and  not  to  pity  him.  Poor 
Jesus!  he  is  going  to  save  the  world,  but 
who  is  going  to  save  him? 
-  If  we  compare  the  trial  of  Jesus  with  that 
of  Socrates,  the  fictitious  nature  of  the  for- 
mer cannot  possibly  escape  detection.  Socra- 
tes was  so  well  known  in  Athens,  that  it  was 
not  necessary  for  his  accusers  to  bribe  one 
of  his  disciples  to  betray  him.  Jesus  should 
have  been  even  better  known  in  Jerusalem 
than  Socrates  was  in  Athens.  He  was  daily 
preaching  in  the  synagogues,  and  his  mira- 
cles had  given  him  an  eclat  which  Socrates 
did  not  enjoy. 

Socrates  is  not  taken  to  court  at  night, 
bound  hand  and  feet.  Jesus  is  arrested  in 
the  glare  of  torchlights,  after  he  is  betrayed 
by  Judas  with  a  kiss;  then  he  is  bound  and 
forced  into  the  high  priest's  presence.  All 
this  is  admirable  setting  for  a  stage,  but 
they  are  no  more  than  that. 


104  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

The  disciples  of  Socrates  behave  Hke  real 
men,  those  of  Jesus  are  actors.  They  run 
away;  they  hide  and  follow  at  a  distance. 
One  of  them  curses  him.  The  cock  crows, 
the  apostate  repents.    This  reads  like  a  play. 

In  the  presence  of  ]|is  judges,  Socrates 
makes  his  own  defense.  One  by  one  he 
meets  the  charges.  Jesus  refused,  accord- 
ing to  two  of  the  evangelists,  to  open  his 
mouth  at  his  trial.  This  is  dramatic,  but  it 
is  not  history.  It  is  not  conceivable  that  a 
real  person  accused  as  Jesus  was,  would 
have  refused  a  great  opportunity  to  dis- 
prove the  charges  against  him.  Socrates' 
defense  of  himself  is  one  of  the  classics. 
Jesus'  silence  is  a  conundrum.  "But  he  an- 
swered nothing,"  "But  Jesus  as  yet  an- 
swered nothing,"  "And  he  answered  him 
never  a  word,"  is  the  report  of  two  of  his 
biographers.  The  other  two  evangelists,  as 
is  usual,  contradict  the  former  and  produce 
the  following  dialogues  between  Jesus  and 
his  judges,  which  from  beginning  to  end 
possess  all  the  marks  of  unreality: 

Pilate. — "Art  thou  the  King  of  the 
Jews?" 

Jesus. — "Sayest  thou  this  thing  of  thy- 
self, or  did  others  tell  it  thee  of  me?" 


The  Jesus  Story  a  Religious  Drama  105 

Pi/a<^.— "Art  thou  a  King?" 

Jesus. — "Thou  sayest  that  I  am  a  King/* 

Is  it  possible  that  a  real  man,  not  to  say 
the  Savior  of  the  world,  would  give  such 
unmeaning  and  evasive  replies  to  straight- 
forward questions?  Does  it  not  read  like  a 
page  from  fiction? 

In  the  presence  of  the  priests  of  his  own 
race  Jesus  is  as  indefinite  and  sophistical 
as  he  is  before  the  Roman  Pilate. 

The  Priests.— ''Art  thou  the  Christ— tell 
us?" 

Jesus. — "If  I  tell  you  ye  will  not  believe 
me." 

The  Priests. — "Art  thou  the  Son  of 
God?" 

Jesus. — "Ye  say  that  I  am." 

In  the  first  answer  he  refuses  to  reveal 
himself  because  he  does  not  think  he  can 
command  belief  in  himself;  in  his  second 
answer  he  either  blames  them  for  saying  he 
was  the  Son  of  God,  or  quotes  their  own 
testimony  to  prove  that  he  is  the  Son  of 
God.  But  if  they  believed  he  was  God, 
would  they  try  to  kill  him?  Is  it  not  un- 
thinkable ?  He  intimates  that  the  priests  be- 
lieve he  is  the  Son  of  God — "Ye  say  that 
I  am."    Surely,  it  is  more  probable  that 


106  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

these  dialogues  were  invented  by  his  anony- 
mous biographers  than  that  they  really  rep- 
resent an  actual  conversation  between  Jesus 
and  his  judges. 

Compare  in  the  next  place  the  manner  in 
which  the  public  trials  of  Socrates  and  Jesus 
are  conducted.  There  is  order  in  the  Athen- 
ian court;  there  is  anarchy  in  the  Jerusalem 
court.  Witnesses  and  accusers  walk  up  to 
Jesus  and  slap  him  on  the  face,  and  the 
judge  does  not  reprove  them  for  it.  The 
court  is  in  the  hands  of  rowdies  and  hood- 
lums, who  shout  "Crucify  him,"  and  again, 
"Crucify  him."  A  Roman  judge,  while  ad- 
mitting that  he  finds  no  guilt  in  Jesus  de- 
serving of  death,  is  nevertheless  represented 
as  handing  him  over  to  the  mob  to  be  killed, 
after  he  has  himself  scourged  him.  No 
Roman  judge  could  have  behaved  as  this 
Pilate  is  reported  to  have  behaved  toward 
an  accused  person  on  trial  for  his  life.  All 
that  we  know  of  civilized  government,  all 
that  we  know  of  the  jurisprudence  of  Rome, 
contradicts  this  "inspired"  account  of  a  pre- 
tended historical  event.  If  Jesus  was  ever 
tried  and  condemned  to  death  in  a  Roman 
court,  an  account  of  it  that  can  command 
belief  has  yet  to  be  written. 


The  Jesus  Story  a  Religious  Drama  107 

Again,  when  we  come  to  consider  the  ran- 
dom, disconnected  and  fragmentary  form 
in  which  the  teachings  of  Jesus  are  pre- 
sented, we  cannot  avoid  the  conclusion  that 
he  is  a  dramatis  persona  brought  upon  the 
stage  to  give  expression  not  to  a  consistent, 
connected  and  carefully  worked-out 
thought,  but  to  voice  with  many  breaks  and 
interruptions,  the  ideas  of  his  changing 
managers.  He  is  made  to  play  a  number 
of  contradictory  roles,  and  appears  in  the 
same  story  in  totally  different  characters. 

One  editor  or  compiler  of  the  Gospel  de- 
scribes Jesus  as  an  ascetic  and  a  mendicant, 
wandering  from  place  to  place,  without  a 
roof  over  his  head,  and  crawling  at  even- 
tide into  his  cave  in  the  JVIount  of  Olives. 
He  introduces  him  as  the  "Man  of  Sor- 
rows," fasting  in  the  wilderness,  counseling 
people  to  part  with  their  riches,  and  prom- 
ising the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  to  Lazarus, 
the  beggar. 

Another  redactor  announces  him  as  "eat- 
ing and  drinking"  at  the  banquets  of  "pub- 
licans and  sinners," — a  "wine-bibbing"  Son 
of  Man.  "John  the  Baptist  came  neither 
eating  nor  drinking,  but  the  Son  of  Man 
came  both  eating  and  drinking,"  which,  if 


108  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

it  means  anything,  means  that  Jesus  was 
the  very  opposite  of  the  ascetic  John. 

A  partisan  of  the  doctrine  of  non-resist- 
ance puts  in  Jesus'  mouth  the  words:  "Re- 
sist not  evil;"  "The  meek  shall  inherit  the 
earth,"  etc.,  and  counsels  that  he  who  smites 
us  on  the  one  cheek  should  be  permitted  to 
strike  us  also  on  the  other,  and  that  to  him 
who  robs  us  of  an  undergarment,  we  should 
also  hand  over  our  outer  garments. 

Another  draws  the  picture  of  a  militant 
Jesus  who  could  never  endorse  such  pre- 
cepts of  indolence  and  resignation.  "The 
kingdom  of  heaven  is  taken  by  violence" 
cries  this  new  Jesus,  and  intimates  that  no 
such  beggar  like  Lazarus,  sitting  all  day 
long  with  the  dogs  and  his  sores,  can  ever 
earn  so  great  a  prize.  With  a  scourge  in 
his  hands  this  Jesus  rushes  upon  the  traders 
in  the  temple-court,  upturns  their  tables  and 
whips  their  owners  into  the  streets.  Surely 
this  was  resistance  of  the  most  pronounced 
type.  The  right  to  use  physical  force  could 
not  have  been  given  a  better  endorsement 
than  by  this  example  of  Jesus. 

It  will  not  help  matters  to  say  that  these 
money-changers  were  violating  a  divine  law, 
and  needed  chastisement  with  a  whip.     Is 


The  Jesus  Story  a  Religious  Drama  109 

not  the  man  who  smites  us  upon  the  cheek, 
or  robs  us  of  our  clothing,  equally  guilty? 
Moreover,  these  traders  in  the  outer  courts 
of  the  synagogue  were  rendering  the  wor- 
shipers a  useful  service.  Just  as  candles, 
rosaries,  images  and  literature  are  sold  in 
church  vestibules  for  the  accommodation  of 
Catholics,  so  were  doves,  pigeons  and  He- 
brew coins,  necessary  to  the  Jewish  sacri- 
fices, sold  in  the  temple-courts  for  the  Jew- 
ish worshiper.  The  money  changer  who 
supplied  the  pious  Jew  with  the  only  sacred 
coin  which  the  priests  would  accept  was  not 
very  much  less  important  to  the  Jewish  re- 
ligion than  the  rabbi.  To  have  fallen  upon 
these  traders  with  a  weapon,  and  to  have 
caused  them  the  loss  of  their  property,  was 
certainly  the  most  inconsistent  thing  that  a 
"meek"  and  "lowly"  Jesus  preaching  non- 
resistance  could  have  done. 

Again;  one  writer  makes  Jesus  the 
teacher  par  excellence  of  peace.  He  coun- 
sels forgiveness  of  injuries  not  seven  times, 
but  seventy  times  that  number — meaning 
unlimited  love  and  charity.  "Love  your 
enemies,"  "Bless  them  that  curse  you,"  is 
his  unusual  advice.  But  another  hand  re- 
touches this  picture,  and  we  have  a  Jesus 


110  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

who  breaks  his  own  golden  rule.  This  other 
Jesus  heaps  abuse  upon  the  people  who 
displease  him;  calls  his  enemies  "vipers," 
"serpents,"  "devils,"  and  predicts  for  them 
eternal  burnings  in  sulphur  and  brimstone. 
How  could  he  who  said,  "Come  unto  me 
all  ye  that  are  heavy  laden,"  say  also,  "De- 
part from  me  ye  cursed?"  Who  curses 
them?  How  can  there  be  an  everlasting 
hell  in  a  universe  whose  author*  advises  us 
to  love  our  enemies,  to  bless  them  that  curse 
us,  and  to  forgive  seventy  times  seven? 
How  could  the  same  Jesus  who  said, 
"Blessed  are  the  peacemakers,"  say  also,  "I 
came  not  to  bring  peace,  but  a  sword?"  Is 
it  possible  that  the  same  Jesus  who  com- 
mands us  to  love  our  enemies,  commands  us 
also  to  "hate"  father,  mother,  wife  and 
child,  for  "his  name's  sake?"  Yes!  the  same 
Jesus  who  said,  "Put  up  thy  sword  in  its 
sheath,"  also  commands  us  to  sell  our  ef- 
fects and  "buy  a  sword." 

Once  more :  A  believer  in  the  divinity  of 
Jesus — -I  am  going  to  say — invents  the  fol- 
lowing text:  "The  Father  and  I  are  one** 
An  opponent  to  this  Trinitarian  dogma  in- 
troduces a  correction  which  robs  the  above 
text    of    its    authority:     "The    Father    is 


The  Jesus  Story  a  Religious  Drama  111 

greater  than  I,"  and  makes  Jesus  admit 
openly  that  there  are  some  things  known 
to  the  father  only.  It  is  difficult  not  to  see 
in  these  passages  the  beginnings  of  the  ter- 
rible controversies  which,  starting  with 
Peter  and  Paul,  have  come  down  to  our  day, 
and  which  will  not  end  until  Jesus  shall  take 
his  place  among  the  mythical  saviors  of 
the  M'orld. 

To  harmonize  these  many  and  different 
Jesuses  into  something  like  unity  or  con- 
sistency a  thousand  books  have  been  written 
by  the  clergy.  They  have  not  succeeded. 
How  can  a  Jesus  represented  at  one  time 
as  the  image  of  divine  perfection,  and  at 
another  as  protesting  against  being  called 
"good,"  for  "none  is  good,  save  one,  God," 
— how  can  these  two  conceptions  be  recon- 
ciled except  by  a  resort  to  artificial  and 
arbitrary  interpretations?  If  such  insur- 
mountable contradictions  in  the  teachings 
and  character  of  another  would  weaken  our 
faith  in  his  historicity,  then  we  are  justi- 
fied in  inferring  that  in  all  probability  Jesus 
was  only  a  name — the  name  of  an  imagi- 
nary stage  hero,  uttering  the  conflicting 
thoughts  of  his  prompters. 

Again,  such  phrases  as, "and  he  was  caught 


112  The  Truth  About  Jesus 


up  in  a  cloud," — describing  the  ascension 
and  consequent  disappearance  of  Jesus,  be- 
tray the  anxiety  of  the  authors  of  the  Gos- 
pels to  bring  their  marvelous  story  to  a 
close.  Not  knowing  how  to  terminate  the 
career  of  an  imaginary  Messiah,  his  creators 
invented  the  above  method  of  dispatching 
him.  "He  was  caught  up  in  a  cloud," — but 
for  that,  the  narrators  would  have  been 
obliged  to  continue  their  story  indefinitely. 

In  tragedy  the  play  ends  with  the  death 
of  the  hero,  but  if  the  biographers  of  Jesus 
had  given  a  similar  excuse  for  bringing  their 
narrative  to  a  finale^  there  would  have  been 
the  danger  of  their  being  asked  to  point  out 
his  grave.  "He  was  caught  up  in  a  cloud," 
relieved  them  of  all  responsibility  to  pro- 
duce his  remains  if  called  upon  to  do  so, 
and,  at  the  same  time,  furnished  them  with 
an  excuse  to  bring  their  story  to  a  close. 

It  would  hardly  be  necessary,  were  we 
all  unbiased,  to  look  for  any  further  proofs 
of  the  mythical  and  fanciful  nature  of  the 
Gospel  narratives  than  this  expedient  to 
which  the  writers  resorted.  To  questions, 
"Where  is  Jesus?"  "What  became  of  his 
body?"  etc.,  they  could  answer,  "He  v/as 
caught  up  in  a  cloud."    But  a  career  that 


The  Jesus  Story  a  Religious  Drama  113 


Coin   of  the   XII   Century, 
Showing  Halo   Around   Lamb's  Head. 

ends  in  the  clouds  was  never  begun  on  the 
earth. 

Let  us  imagine  ourselves  in  Jerusalem  in 
the  year  One,  of  the  Christian  era,  when  the 
apostles,  as  it  is  clamied,  were  proclaiming 
Jesus  as  the  INIessiah,  crucified  and  risen. 
Desiring  to  be  convinced  before  believing  in 
the  strange  story,  let  us  suppose  the  fol- 
lowing conversation  between  the  apostles 
and  ourselves.    We  ask : 

How  long  have  you  known  Jesus? 

I  have  known  him  for  one  year. 

And  I  for  two. 

And  I  for  three. 

Has  any  of  you  known  him  for  more  than 
three  years? 

No. 

Was  he  with  his  apostles  for  one  year  or 
for  three? 

For  one. 

No,  for  three. 


114  The  Truth  About  iesus 

You  are  not  certain,  then,  how  long  Jesus 
was  with  his  apostles. 

No. 

How  old  was  Jesus  when  crucified? 

About  thirty-one. 

No,  about  thirty-three. 

No,  he  was  much  older,  about  fifty. 

You  cannot  tell  with  any  certainty,  then, 
his  age  at  the  time  of  his  death. 

No. 

You  say  he  was  tried  and  crucified  in 
Jerusalem  before  your  own  eyes,  can  you 
remember  the  date  of  this  great  event? 

We  cannot. 

Were  you  present  when  Jesus  was  taken 
down  from  the  cross? 

We  were  not. 

You  cannot  tell,  then,  whether  he  was 
dead  when  taken  down. 

We  have  no  personal  knowledge. 

Were  you  present  when  he  was  buried? 

We  were  not,  because  we  were  in  hiding 

for  our  lives. 

You  do  not  know,  therefore,  whether  he 
was  actually  buried,  or  where  he  was  buried. 

We  do  not. 

Were  any  of  you  present  when  Jesus 
came  forth  from  the  grave? 


The  Jesus  Story  a  Religions  Drama  115 

Not  one  of  us  was  present. 

Then,  you  were  not  with  him  when  he 
was  taken  down  from  the  cross;  you  were 
not  with  him  when  he  was  interred,  and  you 
were  not  present  when  he  rose  from  the 
grave. 

We  were  not. 

When,  therefore,  you  say,  he  was  dead, 
buried  and  rose  again,  you  are  relying  upon 
the  testimony  of  others? 

We  are. 

Will  you  mention  the  names  of  some  of 
the  witnesses  who  saw  Jesus  come  forth 
from  the  tomb? 

Mary  INIagdalene,  and  she  is  here  and 
may  be  questioned. 

Were  you  present,  INIary,  when  the  angels 
rolled  away  the  stone,  and  when  Jesus  came 
forth  from  the  dead? 

No,  when  I  reached  the  burying  place 
early  in  the  morning,  the  grave  had  already 
been  vacated,  and  there  was  no  one  sleeping 
in  it. 

You  saw  him,  then,  as  the  apostles  did, 
after  he  had  risen  ? 

Yes. 

But  you  did  not  see  anybody  rise  out  of 
the  grave. 


116  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

I  did  not. 

Are  there  any  witnesses  who  saw  the 
resurrection  ? 

There  are  many  who  saw  him  after  the 
resurrection. 

But  if  neither  they  nor  you  saw  him  dead, 
and  buried,  and  did  not  see  him  rise,  either, 
how  can  you  tell  that  a  most  astounding 
and  supposedly  impossible  miracle  had  taken 
place  between  the  time  you  saw  him  last  and 
when  you  saw  him  again  two  or  three  days 
after?  Is  it  not  more  natural  to  suppose 
that,  being  in  a  hurry  on  account  of  the  ap- 
proaching Sabbath,  Jesus,  if  ever  crucified, 
was  taken  down  from  the  cross  before  he 
had  really  died,  and  that  he  was  not  buried, 
as  rumor  states,  but  remained  in  hiding ;  and 
his  showing  himself  to  you  under  cover  of 
darkness  and  in  secluded  spots  and  in  the 
dead  of  night  only,  would  seem  to  confirm 
this  explanation. 

You  admit  also  that  the  risen  Jesus 
did  not  present  himself  at  the  syna- 
gogues of  the  people,  in  the  public  streets, 
or  at  the  palace  of  the  High  Priest  to  con- 
vince them  of  his  Messiahship.  Do  you  not 
think  that  if  he  had  done  this,  it  would  then 
have  been  impossible  to  deny  his  resurrec- 


The  Jesus  Story  a  Religious  Drama  117 

tion?  Why,  then,  did  Jesus  hide  himself 
after  he  came  out  of  the  grave?  Why  did  he 
not  show  himself  also  to  his  enemies?  Was 
he  still  afraid  of  them,  or  did  he  not  care 
whether  they  believed  or  not?  If  so,  why  are 
you  trying  to  convert  them?  The  question 
waits  for  a  reasonable  answer;  Why  did  not 
Jesus  challenge  the  whole  world  with  the 
evidence  of  his  resurrection?  You  say  you 
saw  him  occasionally,  a  few  moments  at  a 
time,  now  here,  and  now  there,  and  finally 
on  the  top  of  a  mountain  whence  he  was 
caught  up  in  a  cloud  and  disappeared  alto- 
gether. But  that  "cloud"  has  melted  away, 
the  sky  is  clear,  and  there  is  no  Jesus  visible 
there.  The  cloud,  then,  had  nothing  to  hide. 
It  was  unnecessary  to  call  in  a  cloud  to  close 
the  career  of  your  Christ.  The  grave  is 
empty,  the  cloud  has  vanished.  Where  is 
Christ?  In  heaven  1  Ah,  you  have  at  last 
removed  him  to  a  world  unknown,  to  the 
undiscovered  country.  Leave  him  there! 
Criticism,  doubt,  investigation,  the  light  of 
day,  cannot  cross  its  shores.  Leave  him 
there  1 


St.    Margaret    of    the    Catholic 
Church,    Westminster,    England. 


The    Goddess    Astarte    Carrying 
a    Cross,    British    Museum. 


THE  JESUS  OF  PAUL 

The  central  figure  of  the  New  Testament 
is  Jesus,  and  the  question  we  are  trying  to 
answer  is,  whether  we  have  sufficient  evi- 
dence to  prove  to  the  unbiased  mind  that  he 
is  historical.  An  idea  of  the  intellectual 
cahber  of  the  average  churcliman  may  be 
had  by  the  nature  of  the  evidence  he  offers 
to  justify  his  faith  in  the  historical  Jesus. 
"The  whole  world  celebrates  annually  the 
nativity  of  Jesus;  how  could  there  be  a 
Christmas  celebration  if  there  never  was  a 
Christ?"  asks  a  Chicago  clergyman.  The 
simplicity  of  this  plea  would  be  touching 
were  it  not  that  it  calls  attention  to  the  pain- 
ful inefficiency  of  the  pulpit  as  an  educator. 
The  church  goer  is  trained  to  believe,  not 
to  think.  The  truth  is  withheld  from  him 
under  the  pious  pretense  that  faith,  and  not 

118 


The, Jesus  of  Paul  119 

knowledge,  is  the  essential  thing.  A  habit 
of  untruthfulness  is  cultivated  by  syste- 
matically sacrificing  everything  to  ortho- 
doxy. This  habit  in  the  end  destroys  one's 
conscience  for  any  truths  which  are  preju- 
dicial to  one's  interest.  But  is  it  true  that 
the  Christmas  celebration  proves  a  historical 
Jesus  ? 

We  can  only  offer  a  few  additional 
remarks  to  what  we  have  already  said 
elsewhere  in  these  pages  on  the  Pagan  origin 
of  Christmas.  It  will  make  us  grateful  to 
remember  that  just  as  we  have  to  go  to  the 
Pagans  for  the  origins  of  our  civilized  insti- 
tutions— our  courts  of  justice,  our  art  and 
literature,  and  our  political  and  religious 
liberties — we  must  thank  them  also  for  our 
merry  festivals,  such  as  Christmas  and  Eas- 
ter. The  ignorant,  of  course,  do  not  know 
anything  about  the  value  and  wealth  of  the 
legacy  bequeathed  to  us  by  our  glorious  an- 
cestors of  Greek  and  Roman  times,  but  the 
educated  can  have  no  excuse  for  any  failure 
to  own  their  everlasting  indebtedness  to  the 
Pagans.  It  will  be  impossible  today  to  write 
the  history  of  civilization  without  giving  to 
the  classical  world  the  leading  role.  But 
while  accepting  the  gifts  of  the  Pagan  peo- 


120  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

pies  we  have  abused  the  givers.  A  beneficiary 
who  will  defame  a  bounteous  benefactor  is 
unworthy  of  his  good  fortune.  I  regret  to 
say  that  the  Christian  church,  notwithstand- 
ing that  it  owes  many  of  its  most  precious 
privileges  to  the  Pagans,  has  returned  for 
service  rendered  insolence  and  vituperation. 
No  generous  or  just  institution  would  treat 
a  rival  as  Christianity  has  treated  Paganism. 
Both  Christmas  and  Easter  are  Pagan 
festivals.  We  do  not  know,  no  one  knows, 
when  Jesus  was  born ;  but  we  know  the  time 
of  the  winter  solstice  when  the  sun  begins 
to  retrace  his  steps,  turning  his  radiant  face 
toward  our  earth  once  more.  It  was  this 
event,  a  natural,  demonstrable,  universal, 
event,  that  our  European  ancestors  cele- 
brated with  song  and  dance — with  green 
branches,  through  which  twinkled  a  thou- 
sand lighted  candles,  and  with  the  exchange 
of  good  wishes  and  gifts.  Has  the  church 
had  the  courage  to  tell  its  people  that  Christ- 
mas is  a  Pagan  festival  which  was  adopted 
and  adapted  by  the  Christian  world,  reluc- 
tantly at  first,  and  in  the  end  as  a  measure 
of  compromise  only?  The  Protestants,  es- 
pecially, conveniently  forget  the  severe 
Puritanic  legislation  against  the  observance 


The  Jesus  of  Paul  121 

of  this  Pagan  festival,  both  in  England  and 
America.  It  is  the  return  to  Paganism 
which  has  given  to  Christmas  and  Easter 
their  great  popularity,  as  it  is  the  revival  of 
Paganism  which  is  everywhere  replacing  the 
Bible  ideas  of  monarchic  government  with 
republicanism.  And  yet,  repeatedly,  and 
without  any  scruples  of  conscience,  preacher 
and  people  claim  these  festivals  as  the  gifts 
of  their  creed  to  humanity,  and  quote  them 
further  to  prove  the  historical  existence  of 
their  god-man,  Jesus.  It  was  this  open  and 
persistent  perversion  of  history  by  the 
church,  the  manufacture  of  evidence  on  the 
one  hand,  the  suppression  of  witnesses  pre- 
judiced to  her  interests  on  the  other,  and 
the  deliberate  forging  of  documents,  which 
provoked  Carlyle  into  referring  to  one  of 
its  branches  as  the  great  lying  Church. 

We  have  said  enough  to  show  that,  in  all 
probability — for  let  us  not  be  dogmatic — 
the  story  of  Jesus, — his  birth  and  betrayal 
by  one  of  his  own  disciples,  his  trial  in  a 
Roman  court,  his  crucifixion,  resurrection 
and  ascension, — belongs  to  the  order  of 
imaginative  literature.  Conceived  at  first 
as  a  religious  drama,  it  received  many  new 
accretions  as  it  traveled  from  country  to 


122  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

country  and  from  age  to  age.  The  "piece" 
shows  signs  of  having  been  touched  and  re- 
touched to  make  it  acceptable  to  the  differ- 
ent countries  in  which  it  was  played.  The 
hand  of  the  adapter,  the  interpolator  and 
the  reviser  is  unmistakably  present.  As  an 
allegory,  or  as  a  dramatic  composition, 
meant  for  the  religious  stage,  it  proved  one 
of  the  strongest  productions  of  Pagan  or 
Christian  times.  But  as  real  history,  it  lacks 
the  fundamental  requisite — probability.  As 
a  play,  it  is  stirring  and  strong;  as  history, 
it  lacks  naturalness  and  consistency.  The 
miraculous  is  ever  outside  the  province  of 
history.  Jesus  was  a  miracle,  and  as  such, 
at  least,  we  are  safe  in  declaring  him  un- 
historical. 

We  pass  on  now  to  the  presentation  of 
evidence  which  we  venture  to  think  demon- 
strates with  an  almost  mathematic  precision, 
that  the  Jesus  of  the  four  gospels  is  a 
legendary  hero,  as  unhistorical  as  William 
Tell  of  Switzerland.  This  evidence  is  fur- 
nished by  the  epistles  bearing  the  signature 
of  Paul.  He  has  been  accepted  as  not  only 
the  greatest  apostle  of  Christianity,  but  in  a 
sense  also  the  author  of  its  theology.  It  is 
generally  admitted  that  the  epistles  bearing 


The  Jesus  of  Paul  123 

the  name  of  Paul  are  among  the  oldest  apos- 
tolical writings.  They  are  older  than  the 
gospels.  This  is  very  important  informa- 
tion. When  Paul  was  preaching,  the  four 
gospels  had  not  yet  been  written.  From 
the  epistles  of  Paul,  of  which  there  are  about 
thirteen  in  the  Bible — ^making  the  New 
Testament  largely  the  work  of  this  one 
apostle — we  learn  that  there  were  in  differ- 
ent parts  of  Asia,  a  number  of  Christian 
churches  already  established.  Not  only 
Paul,  then,  but  also  the  Christian  church 
was  in  existence  before  the  gospels  were 
composed.  It  would  be  natural  to  infer 
that  it  was  not  the  gospels  which  created  the 
church,  but  the  church  which  produced  the 
gospels.  Do  not  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that 
when  Paul  was  preaching  to  the  Christians 
there  was  no  wTitten  biography  of  Jesus  in 
existence.  There  was  a  church  without  a 
book. 

In  comparing  the  Jesus  of  Paul  with  the 
Jesus  whose  portrait  is  drawn  for  us  in  the 
gospels,  we  find  that  they  are  not  the  same 
persons  at  all.  This  is  decisive.  Paul  knows 
nothing  about  a  miraculously  born  savior. 
He  does  not  mention  a  single  time,  in  all 
his  thirteen  epistles,  that  Jesus  was  born  of 


124  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

a  virgin,  or  that  his  birth  was  accompanied 
with  heavenly  signs  and  wonders.  He  knew 
nothing  of  a  Jesus  born  after  the  manner  of 
the  gospel  writers.  It  is  not  imaginable  that 
he  knew  the  facts,  but  suppressed  them,  or 
that  he  considered  them  unimportant,  or 
that  he  forgot  to  refer  to  them  in  any  of  his 
public  utterances.  Today,  a  preacher  is  ex- 
pelled from  his  denomination  if  he  sup- 
presses or  ignores  the  miraculous  conception 
of  the  Son  of  God ;  but  Paul  was  guilty  of 
that  very  heresy.  How  explain  it?  It  is 
quite  simple:  The  virgin-born  Jesus  was 
not  yet  invented  when  Paul  was  preaching 
Christianity.  Neither  he,  nor  the  churches 
he  had  organized,  had  ever  heard  of  such  a 
person.  The  virgin-born  Jesus  was  of  later 
origin  than  the  Apostle  Paul. 

Let  the  meaning  of  this  discrepancy  be- 
tween the  Jesus  of  Paul,  that  is  to  say,  the 
earliest  portrait  of  Jesus,  and  the  Jesus  of 
the  four  evangelists,  be  fully  grasped  by 
the  student,  and  it  should  prove  beyond  a 
doubt  that  in  Paul's  time  the  story  of  Jesus' 
birth  from  the  virgin-mother  and  the  Holy 
Ghost,  which  has  since  become  a  cardinal 
dogma  of  the  Christian  church,  was  not  yet 
in  circulation.    Jesus  had  not  yet  been  Hel- 


The  Jesus  of  Paul  125 

lenized ;  he  was  still  a  Jewish  Messiah  whose 
coming  was  foretold  in  the  Old  Testament, 
and  who  was  to  be  a  prophet  like  unto 
Moses,  without  the  remotest  suggestion  of  a 
supernatural  origin. 

No  proposition  in  Euclid  is  safer  from 
contradiction  than  that,  if  Paul  knew  what 
the  gospels  tell  about  Jesus,  he  would  have, 
at  least  once  or  twice  during  his  long  min- 
istry, given  evidence  of  his  knowledge  of 
it.  The  conclusion  is  inevitable  that  the 
gospel  Jesus  is  later  than  Paul  and  his 
churches.  Paul  stood  nearest  to  the  time 
of  Jesus.  Of  those  whose  writings  are 
supposed  to  have  come  down  to  us,  he  is  the 
most  representative,  and  his  epistles  are  the 
first  literature  of  the  new  religion.  And 
yet  there  is  absolutely  not  a  single  hint  or 
suggestion  in  them  of  such  a  Jesus  as  is 
depicted  in  the  gospels.  The  gospel  Jesus 
was  not  yet  put  together  or  compiled,  when 
Paul  was  preaching. 

Once  more;  if  we  peruse  carefully  and 
critically  the  MTitings  of  Paul,  the  earliest 
and  greatest  Christian  apostle  and  mission- 
ary, we  find  that  he  is  not  only  ignorant  of 
the  gospel  stories  about  the  birth  and  mir- 
acles of  Jesus,  but  he  is  equally  and  just 


126  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

as  innocently  ignorant  of  the  teachings  of 
Jesus.  In  the  gospels  Jesus  is  the  author 
of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  the  Lord*s 
Prayer,  the  Parable  of  the  Prodigal  Son, 
the  Story  of  Dives,  the  Good  Samaritan^ 
etc.  Is  it  conceivable  that  a  preacher  of 
Jesus  could  go  throughout  the  world  to  con- 
vert people  to  the  teachings  of  Jesus,  as 
Paul  did,  without  ever  quoting  a  single  one 
of  his  sayings?  Had  Paul  known  that 
Jesus  had  preached  a  sermon,  or  formulated 
a  prayer,  or  said  many  inspired  things  about 
the  here  and  the  hereafter,  he  could  not  have 
helped  quoting,  now  and  then,  from  the 
words  of  his  master.  If  Christianity  could 
have  been  established  without  a  knowledge 
of  the  teachings  of  Jesus,  why,  then,  did 
Jesus  come  to  teach,  and  why  were  his  teach- 
ings preserved  by  divine  inspiration?  But 
if  a  knowledge  of  these  teachings  of  Jesus 
is  indispensable  to  making  converts,  Paul 
gives  not  the  least  evidence  that  he  pos- 
sessed such  knowledge. 

But  the  Apostle  Paul,  judging  from  his 
many  epistles  to  the  earliest  converts  to 
Christianity,  which  are  really  his  testimony, 
supposed  to  have  been  sealed  by  his  blood, 
appears  to  be  quite  as  ignorant  of  a  Jesus 


The  Jesus  of  Paul  127 

who  went  about  working  miracles, — open- 
ing the  eyes  of  the  blind,  giving  health  to 
the  sick,  hearing  to  the  deaf,  and  life  to  the 
dead, — as  he  is  of  a  Jesus  born  of  a  virgin 
woman  and  the  Holy  Ghost.  Is  not  this 
remarkable?  Does  it  not  lend  strong  con- 
firmation to  the  idea  that  the  miracle-work- 
ing Jesus  of  the  gospels  was  not  known  in 
Paul's  time,  that  is  to  say,  the  earliest  Jesus 
known  to  the  churches  was  a  person  alto- 
gether different  from  his  namesake  in  the 
four  evangelists.  If  Paul  knew  of  a  mir- 
acle-working Jesus,  one  who  could  feed  the 
multitude  with  a  few  loaves  and  fishes — 
who  could  command  the  grave  to  open,  who 
could  cast  out  devils,  and  cleanse  the  land 
of  the  foulest  disease  of  leprosy,  who  could, 
and  did,  perform  many  other  wonderful 
works  to  convince  the  unbelieving  genera- 
tion of  his  divinity, — is  it  conceivable  that 
either  intentionally  or  inadvertently  he 
would  have  never  once  referred  to  them  in 
all  his  preaching?  Is  it  not  almost  certain 
that,  if  the  earliest  Christians  knew  of  the 
miracles  of  Jesus,  they  would  have  been 
greatly  surprised  at  the  failure  of  Paul  to 
refer  to  them  a  single  time?  And  would 
not  Paul  have  told  them  of  the  promise  of 


128  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

Jesus  to  give  them  power  to  work  even 
greater  miracles  than  his  own,  had  he  known 
of  such  a  promise.  Could  Paul  really  have 
left  out  of  his  ministry  so  essential  a  chapter 
from  the  life  of  Jesus,  had  he  been  acquaint- 
ed with  it?  The  miraculous  fills  up  the 
greater  portion  of  the  four  gospels,  and  if 
these  documents  were  dictated  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  it  means  that  they  were  too  impor- 
tant to  be  left  out.  Whj^  then,  does  not 
Paul  speak  of  them  at  all?  There  is  only 
one  reasonable  answer:  A  miracle-working 
Jesus  was  unknown  to  Paul. 

What  would  we  say  of  a  disciple  of  Tols- 
toi, for  example,  who  came  to  America  to 
make  converts  to  Count  Tolstoi  and  never 
once  quoted  anything  that  Tolstoi  had  said? 
Or  what  would  we  think  of  the  Christian 
missionaries  who  go  to  India,  China,  Japan 
and  Africa  to  preach  the  gospel,  if  they 
never  mentioned  to  the  people  of  these 
countries  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  the 
Parable  of  the  Prodigal  Son,  the  Lord's 
Prayer — nor  quoted  a  single  text  from  the 
gospels?  Yet  Paul,  the  first  missionary,  did 
the  very  thing  which  would  be  inexplicable 
in  a  modern  missionary.  There  is  only  one 
rational  explanation  for  this :    The  Jesus  of 


The  Jesus  of  Paul  129 

Paul  was  not  born  of  a  virgin;  he  did  not 
work  miracles;  and  he  was  not  a  teacher. 
It  was  after  his  day  that  such  a  Jesus  was — 
I  have  to  use  again  a  strong  word — invented. 
It  has  been  hinted  by  certain  professional 
defenders  of  Christianity  that  Paul's  spe- 
cific mission  was  to  introduce  Christianity 
among  the  Gentiles,  and  not  to  call  atten- 
tion to  the  miraculous  element  in  the  life  of 
his  jNIaster.  But  this  is  a  very  lame  defense. 
What  is  Christianity,  but  the  life  and  teach- 
ings of  Jesus?  And  how  can  it  be  intro- 
duced among  the  Gentiles  without  a  knowl- 
edge of  the  doctrines  and  works  of  its 
founder?  Paul  gives  no  evidence  of  pos- 
sessing any  knowledge  of  the  teachings  of 
Jesus,  how  could  he,  then,  be  a  missionary  of 
Christianity  to  the  heathen?  There  is  no 
other  answer  which  can  be  given  than  that 
the  Christianity  of  Paul  was  something  rad- 
ically different  from  the  Christianity  of  the 
later  gospel  ^vriters,  who  in  all  probability 
were  Greeks  and  not  Jews.  IMoreover,  it 
is  kno^\Ti  that  Paul  was  reprimanded  by  his 
fellow-apostles  for  carrying  Christianity  to 
the  Gentiles.  What  better  defense  could 
Paul  have  given  for  his  conduct  than  to 
have  quoted  the  commandment  of  Jesus — 


130  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

"Go  ye  into  all  the  world  and  preach  the 
gospel  to  every  creature."  And  he  would 
have  quoted  the  "divine"  text  had  he  been 
familiar  with  it.  Nay,  the  other  apostles 
would  not  have  taken  him  to  task  for  obey- 
ing the  commandment  of  Jesus  had  they 
been  familiar  with  such  a  commandment.  It 
all  goes  to  support  the  proposition  that  the 
gospel  Jesus  was  of  a  date  later  than  the 
apostolic  times. 

That  the  authorities  of  the  church  realize 
how  damaging  to  the  reality  of  the  gospel 
Jesus  is  the  inexplicable  silence  of  Paul  con- 
cerning him,  may  be  seen  in  their  vain  ef- 
fort to  find  in  a  passage  put  in  Paul's  mouth 
by  the  unknown  author  of  the  book  of  Acts, 
evidence  that  Paul  does  quote  the  sayings 
of  Jesus.  The  passage  referred  to  is  the 
following:  "It  is  more  blessed  to  give  than 
to  receive."  Paul  is  made  to  state  that  this 
was  a  saying  of  Jesus.  In  the  first  place, 
this  quotation  is  not  in  the  epistles  of  Paul, 
but  in  the  Acts,  of  which  Paul  was  not  the 
author;  in  the  second  place,  there  is  no  such 
quotation  in  the  gospels.  The  position,  then, 
that  there  is  not  a  single  saying  of  Jesus  in 
the  gospels  which  is  quoted  by  Paul  in  his 
many  epistles  is  unassailable,  and  certainly 


The  Jesus  of  Paul  131 

fatal  to  the  historicity  of  the  gospel  Jesus. 

Again,  from  Paul  himself  we  learn  that 
he  was  a  zealous  Hebrew,  a  Pharisee  of 
Pharisees,  studying  with  Gamaliel  in  Jeru- 
salem, presumably  to  become  a  rabbi.  Is  it 
possible  that  such  a  man  could  remain  to- 
tally ignorant  of  a  miracle  worker  and 
teacher  like  Jesus,  living  in  the  same  city 
with  him?  If  Jesus  really  raised  Lazarus 
from  the  grave,  and  entered  Jerusalem  at 
the  head  of  a  procession,  waving  branches 
and  shouting,  "hosanna" — if  he  was  really 
crucified  in  Jerusalem,  and  ascended  from 
one  of  its  environs — is  it  possible  that  Paul 
neither  saw  Jesus  nor  heard  anything  about 
these  miracles?  But  if  he  knew  all  these 
things  about  Jesus,  is  it  possible  that  he 
could  go  through  the  world  preaching  Christ 
without  ever  once  referring  to  them.f*  It  is 
more  likely  that  when  Paul  was  studying 
in  Jerusalem  there  was  no  miraculous  Jesus 
living  or  teaching  in  any  part  of  Judea. 

If  men  make  their  gods  they  also  make 
their  Christs.*  It  is  frequently  urged  that 
it  was  impossible  for  a  band  of  illiterate 
fishermen  to  have  created  out  of  their  o^vn 


*Christianity  and  Mythology.  J.  M.  Robertson,  to  whom  the 
author  acknowledges  his  indebtedness,  for  the  difference  between 
Paul's  Jesus  and  that  of  the  Gospels. 


132  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

fancy  so  glorious  a  character  as  that  of 
Jesus,  and  that  it  would  be  more  miraculous 
to  suppose  that  the  unique  sayings  of  Jesus 
and  his  incomparably  perfect  life  were  in- 
vented by  a  few  plain  people  than  to  believe 
in  his  actual  existence.  But  it  is  not  honest 
to  throw  the  question  into  that  form.  We 
do  not  know  who  were  the  authors  of  the 
gospels.  It  is  pure  assumption  that  they 
were  written  by  plain  fishermen.  The  au- 
thors of  the  gospels  do  not  disclose  their 
identity.  The  words,  according  to  Matthew, 
Mark,  etc.,  represent  only  the  guesses  or 
opinions  of  translators  and  copyists. 

Both  in  the  gospels  and  in  Christian  his- 
tory the  apostles  are  represented  as  illiterate 
men.  But  if  they  spoke  Greek,  and  could 
also  write  in  Greek,  they  could  not  have 
been  just  plain  fishermen.  That  they  were 
Greeks,  not  Jews,  and  more  or  less  educated, 
may  be  safely  inferred  from  the  fact  that 
they  all  write  in  Greek,  and  one  of  them  at 
least  seems  to  be  acquainted  with  the  Alex- 
andrian school  of  philosophy.  Jesus  was 
supposedly  a  Jew,  his  twelve  apostles  all 
Jews — how  is  it,  then,  that  the  only  biogra- 
phies of  him  extant  are  all  in  Greek?  If 
his  fishermen  disciples  were  capable  of  com- 


The  Jesus  of  Paul  133 

position  in  Greek,  they  could  not  have  been 
illiterate  men,  if  they  could  not  have  written 
in  Greek — which  was  a  rare  accomplishment 
for  a  Jew,  according  to  what  Josephus  says 
— then  the  gospels  were  not  written  by  the 
apostles  of  Jesus.  But  the  fact  that  though 
these  documents  are  in  a  language  alien 
both  to  Jesus  and  his  disciples,  they  are  un- 
signed and  undated,  goes  to  prove,  we  think, 
that  their  editors  or  authors  wished  to  con- 
ceal their  identity  that  they  may  be  taken 
for  the  apostles  themselves. 

In  the  next  place  it  is  equally  an  assump- 
tion that  the  portrait  of  Jesus  is  incompar- 
able. It  is  now  proven  beyond  a  doubt  that 
there  is  not  a  single  saying  of  Jesus,  I  say 
this  deliberately,  which  had  not  already  been 
known  both  among  the  Jews  and  Pagans.* 
And  as  to  his  life;  it  is  in  no  sense  superior 
or  even  as  large  and  as  many  sided  as  that 
of  Socrates.    I  know  some  consider  it  blas- 

*Sometimes  it  is  urged  by  pettifogging  clergymen  that,  while 
it  is  true  that  Confucius  gave  the  Golden  Rule  six  hundred  years 
before  Jesus,  it  was  in  a  negative  form.  Confucius  said,  "Do  not 
unto  another  what  you  would  not  another  to  do  unto  you."  Jesus 
said,  "Do  unto  others,"  etc.  But  every  negative  has  its  corres- 
ponding affirmation.  Moreover,  are  not  the  Ten  Commandments 
in  the  negative?  But  the  Greek  sages  gave  the  Golden  Eule  in  as 
positive  a  form  as  we  find  it  in  the  Gospels.  "And  may  I  do  to 
others  as  I  would  that  others  should  do  to  me,"  said  Plato. — 
Jowett  Trans.,  V.-483.     P. 

Besides,  if  the  only  difference  between  Jesus  and  Confucius, 
the  one  a,  God,  the  other  a  mere  man,  was  that  they  both  said  the 
same  thing,  the  one  in  the  negative,  the  other  in  the  positive,  it 
is  not  enough  to  prove  Jesus  infinitely  superior  to  Confucius. 
Many  of  Jesus'  own  commandments  are  in  the  negative:  "Beiist 
not  evil,"  for  instance. 


134  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

phemy  to  compare  Jesus  with  Socrates,  but 
that  must  be  attributed  to  prejudice  rather 
than  to  reason. 

And  to  the  question  that  if  Jesus  be  myth- 
ical, we  cannot  account  for  the  rise  and 
progress  of  the  Christian  church,  we  answer 
that  the  Pagan  gods  who  occupied  Mount 
Olympus  were  all  mythical  beings — mere 
shadows,  and  yet  Paganism  was  the  rehgion 
of  the  most  advanced  and  cultured  nations 
of  antiquity.  How  could  an  imaginary 
Zeus,  or  Jupiter,  draw  to  his  temple  the  elite 
of  Greece  and  Rome?  And  if  there  is 
nothing  strange  in  the  rise  and  spread  of 
the  Pagan  church;  in  the  rapid  progress  of 
the  worship  of  Osiris,  who  never  existed;  in 
the  wonderful  success  of  the  religion  of 
Mithra,  who  is  but  a  name;  if  the  worship 
of  Adonis,  of  Attis,  of  Isis,  and  the  legends 
of  Heracles,  Prometheus,  Hercules,  and  the 
Hindoo  trinity, — Brahma,  Shiva,  Chrishna, 
— with  their  rock-hewn  temples,  can  be  ex- 
plained without  believing  in  the  actual  ex- 
istence of  these  gods — why  not  Christian- 
ity? Religions,  like  everything  else,  are 
born,  they  grow  old  and  die.  They  show  the 
handiwork  of  whole  races,  and  of  different 
epochs,  rather  than  of  one  man  or  of  one 


The  Jesus  of  Paul  135 

age.  Time  gives  them  birth,  and  changing 
environments  determine  their  career.  Just 
as  the  portrait  of  Jesus  we  see  in  shops  and 
churches  is  an  invention,  so  is  his  character. 
The  artist  gave  him  his  features,  the  theo- 
logian his  attributes. 

What  are  the  elements  out  of  which  the 
Jesus  story  was  evolved?  The  Jewish  peo- 
ple were  in  constant  expectation  of  a  Mes- 
siah. The  belief  prevailed  that  his  name 
would  be  Joshua,  which  in  English  is  Jesus. 
The  meaning  of  the  word  is  savior.  In  an- 
cient Syrian  mythology,  Joshua  was  a  Sun 
God.  The  Old- Testament  Joshua,  who 
"stopped  the  Sun,"  was  in  all  probability 
this  same  Syrian  divinity.  According  to  tra- 
dition this  Joshua,  or  Jesus,  was  the  son  of 
'Mary,  a  name  which  with  slight  variations 
is  found  in  nearly  all  the  old  mythologies. 
Greek  and  Hindoo  divinities  were  mothered 
by  either  a  JNIary,  jNIeriam,  Myrrah,  or 
INIerri.  Maria  or  JNIares  is  the  oldest  word 
for  sea — the  earliest  source  of  life.  The  an- 
cients looked  upon  the  sea-water  as  the 
mother  of  every  living  thing.  "Joshua  (or 
Jesus),  son  of  Mary,"  was  already  a  part 
of  the  religious  outfit  of  the  Asiatic  world 
when  Paul  began  his  missionary  tours.    His 


136  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

Jesus,  or  anointed  one,  crucified  or  slain, 
did  in  no  sense  represent  a  new  or  original 
message.  It  is  no  more  strange  that  Paul's 
mythological  "savior"  should  loom  into 
prominence  and  cast  a  spell  over  all  the 
world,  than  that  a  mythical  Apollo  or  Ju- 
piter should  rule  for  thousands  of  years  over 
the  fairest  portions  of  the  earth. 

It  is  also  well  known  that  there  is  in  the 
Talmud  the  story  of  a  Jesus,  Ben,  or  son, 
of  Pandira,  who  Hved  about  a  hundred  years 
before  the  Gospel  Jesus,  and  who  was 
hanged  from  a  tree.  I  believe  this  Jesus  is 
quite  as  legendary  as  the  Syrian  Hesous, 
or  Joshua.  But  may  it  not  be  that  such  a 
legend  accepted  as  true — to  the  ancients 
all  legends  were  true  —  contributed  its 
share  toward  marking  the  outlines  of 
the  later  Jesus,  hanged  on  a  cross?  My 
idea  has  been  to  show  that  the  materials 
for  a  Jesus  myth  were  at  hand,  and  that, 
therefore,  to  account  for  the  rise  and  pro- 
gress of  the  Christian  cult  is  no  more  diffi- 
cult than  to  explain  the  widely  spread  re- 
ligion of  the  Indian  Chrishna,  or  of  the  Per- 
sian Mithra.* 


*For  a  fuller  discussion  of  the  various  "christs"  in  mythology 
read  Robertson's  Christianity  and  Mythology  and  his  Pagan 
Christs. 


The  Jesus  of  Paul  137 

Now,  why  have  I  given  these  conclusions 
to  the  world?  Would  I  not  have  made 
more  friends — provoked  a  warmer  response 
from  the  public  at  large — had  I  repeated  in 
pleasant  accents  the  familiar  phrases  about 
the  glory  and  beauty  and  sweetness  of  the 
Savior  God,  the  Virgin-born  Christ?  In- 
stead of  that,  I  have  run  the  risk  of  alienat- 
ing the  sympathies  of  my  fellows  by  intimat- 
ing that  this  Jesus  whom  Christendom 
worships  today  as  a  god,  this  Jesus  at  whose 
altar  the  Christian  world  bends  its  knees  and 
bows  its  head,  is  as  much  of  an  idol  as  was 
Apollo  of  the  Greeks;  and  that  we — we 
Americans  of  the  twentieth  century — are  an 
idolatrous  people,  inasmuch  as  we  worship 
a  name,  or  at  most,  a  man  of  whom  we 
know  nothing  provable. 


Italian  Sculpture  of  the  X  Century. 

IS  CHRISTIANITY  REAL? 

It  is  assumed,  without  foundation,  as  I 
hope  to  show,  that  the  religion  of  Jesus 
alone  can  save  the  world.  We  are  not  sur- 
prised at  the  claim,  because  there  has  never 
been  a  religion  which  has  been  too  modest  to 
make  a  similar  claim.  No  religion  has  ever 
been  satisfied  to  be  one  of  the  saviors  of  man. 
Each  religion  wants  to  be  the  only  savior  of 
man.  There  is  no  monopoly  like  religious 
monopoly.  The  industrial  corporations  with 
all  their  greed  are  less  exacting  than  the 
Catholic  church,  for  instance,  which  keeps 
heaven  itself  under  lock  and  key. 

But  what  is  meant  by  salvation?  Let  us 
consider  its  religious  meaning  first.  An  un- 

138 


Is  Christianity  Real?  139 

biased  investigation  of  the  dogmas  and  their 
supposed  historical  foundations  will  prove 
that  the  salvation  which  Christianity  offers, 
and  the  means  by  which  it  proposes  to  eifect 
the  world's  salvation,  are  extremely  fanciful 
in  nature.  If  this  point  could  be  made  clear, 
there  will  be  less  reluctance  on  the  part  of 
the  public  to  listen  to  the  evidence  on  the  un- 
historicity  of  the  founder  of  Christianity. 
We  are  told  that  God,  who  is  perfect,  cre- 
ated this  world  about  half  a  hundred  cen- 
turies ago.  Of  course,  being  perfect  himself 
the  world  which  he  created  was  perfect,  too. 
But  the  world  did  not  stay  perfect  very 
long.  Nay,  from  the  heights  it  fell,  not 
slowly,  but  suddenly,  into  the  lowest  depths 
of  degradation.  How  a  world  which 
God  had  created  perfect,  could  in  the 
twinkling  of  an  eye  become  so  vile  as 
to  be  cursed  by  the  same  being  who 
a  moment  before  had  pronounced  it 
*'good,"  and  besides  be  handed  over  to 
the  devil  as  fuel  for  eternal  burnings,  only 
credulitj''  can  explain.  I  am  giving  the 
story  of  what  is  called  the  "plan  of  salva- 
tion," in  order  to  show  its  mj^thical  nature. 
In  the  preceding  pages  we  have  discussed 
the  question.  Is  Jesus  a  INIyth,  but  I  believe 


140  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

that  when  we  have  reflected  upon  the  story 
of  man's  fall  and  his  supposed  subsequent 
salvation  by  the  blood  of  Jesus,  we  shall 
conclude  that  the  function,  or  the  office, 
which  Jesus  is  said  to  perform,  is  as  mythical 
as  his  person. 

The  story  of  Eden  possesses  all  the  marks 
of  an  allegory.  Adam  and  Eve,  and  a  per- 
fect world  suddenly  plunged  from  a  snowy 
whiteness  into  the  blackness  of  hell,  are  the 
thoughts  of  a  child  who  exaggerates  be- 
cause of  an  as  yet  undisciplined  fancy.  Yet, 
if  Adam  and  Eve  are  unreal,  theologically 
speaking,  Jesus  is  unreal.  If  they  are  al- 
legory and  mjrth,  so  is  Jesus.  It  is  claimed 
that  it  was  the  fall  of  Adam  which  neces- 
sitated the  death  of  Jesus,  but  if  Adam's 
fall  be  a  fiction,  as  we  know  it  is,  Jesus* 
death  as  an  atonement  must  also  be  a  fiction. 

In  the  fall  of  Adam,  we  are  told,  human- 
ity itself  fell.  Could  anything  be  more  fan- 
ciful than  that?  And  what  was  Adam's  sin? 
He  coveted  knowledge.  He  wished  to  im- 
prove his  mind.  He  experimented  with  for- 
bidden things.  He  dared  to  take  the  initia- 
tive. And  for  that  imaginary  crime,  even 
the  generations  not  yet  born  are  to  be  for- 
ever blighted.    Even  the  animals,  the  flow- 


Is  Christianity  Real?  141 

ers  and  vegetables  were  cursed  for  it.  Can 
you  conceive  of  anything  more  mythical 
than  that?  One  of  the  English  divines  of 
the  age  of  Calvin  declared  that  original  sin, 
— Adam's  sin  imputed  to  us, — was  so  awful, 
that  "if  a  man  had  never  been  born  he  would 
yet  have  been  damned  for  it."  It  is  from 
this  myihical  sin  that  a  mythical  Savior  saves 
us.  And  how  does  he  do  it?  In  a  very 
mythical  way,  as  we  shall  see. 

When  the  world  fell,  it  fell  into  the  devil's 
hands.  To  redeem  a  part  of  it,  at  least,  the 
deity  concludes  to  give  up  his  only  son  for 
a  ransom.  This  is  interesting.  God  is  rep- 
resented as  being  greatly  oiFended,  because 
the  world  which  he  had  created  perfect  was 
all  in  a  heap  before  him.  To  placate  him- 
self he  sacrificed  his  son — not  himself. 

But,  as  intimated  above,  he  does  not  in- 
tend to  restore  the  whole  world  to  its  pristine 
purity,  but  only  a  part  of  it.  This  is  alarm- 
ing. He  creates  the  whole  world  perfect, 
but  now  he  is  satisfied  to  have  only  a  por- 
tion of  it  redeemed  from  the  devil.  If  he 
can  save  at  all,  pray,  why  not  save  all  ?  This 
is  not  an  irrelevant  question  when  it  is  re- 
membered that  the  whole  world  was  created 
perfect  in  the  first  place. 


142  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

The  refusal  of  the  deity  to  save  all  of 
his  world  from  the  devil  would  lead  one  to 
believe  that  even  when  God  created  the 
world  perfect  he  did  not  mean  to  keep  all 
of  it  to  himself,  but  meant  that  some  of  it, 
the  greater  part  of  it,  as  some  theologians 
contend,  should  go  to  the  devil  1  Surely  this 
is  nothing  but  myth.  Let  us  hope  for  the 
sake  of  our  ideals  that  all  this  is  no  more 
than  the  childish  prattle  of  primitive  man. 

But  let  us  return  to  the  story  of  the  fall 
of  man;  God  decides  to  save  a  part  of  his 
ruined  perfect  world  by  the  sacrifice  of  his 
son.  The  latter  is  supposed  to  have  said 
to  his  father:  "Punish  me,  kill  me,  accept 
my  blood,  and  let  it  pay  for  the  sins  of 
man."  He  thus  interceded  for  the  elect,  and 
the  deity  was  mollified.  As  Jesus  is  also 
God,  it  follows  that  one  God  tried  to  pacify 
another,  which  is  pure  myth.  Some  theo- 
logians have  another  theory — there  is  room 
here  for  many  theories.  According  to  these, 
God  gave  up  his  son  as  a  ransom,  not  to 
himself,  but  to  the  devil,  who  now  claimed 
the  world  as  his  own.  I  heard  a  distin- 
guished minister  explain  this  in  the  follow- 
ing manner:  A  poor  man  whose  house  is 
mortgaged  hears  that  some  philanthropist 


Is  Christianity  Real?  143 

has  redeemed  the  property  by  paying  off  the 
mortgage.  The  soul  of  man  was  by  the  fall 
of  Adam  mortgaged  to  the  devil.  God  has 
raised  the  mortgage  by  abandoning  his  son 
to  be  killed  to  satisfy  the  devil  who  held  the 
mortgage.  The  debt  which  we  owed  has 
been  paid  by  Jesus.  By  this  arrangement 
the  devil  loses  his  legal  right  to  our  souls 
and  we  are  saved.  All  we  need  to  do  is  to 
believe  in  this  story  and  we'll  be  sure  to  go 
to  heaven.  And  to  think  that  intelligent 
Americans  not  only  accept  all  this  as  in- 
spired, but  denounce  the  man  who  ventures 
to  intimate  modestly  that  it  might  be  a  myth, 
as  a  blasphemer!  "O,  judgment!"  cries 
Shakespeare,  "thou  hast  fled  to  brutish 
beasts,  and  men  have  lost  their  reason." 

The  morality  which  the  Christian  church 
teaches  is  of  as  mythical  a  nature  as  the 
story  of  the  fall,  and  the  blood-atonement. 
It  is  not  natural  morality,  but  something 
quite  unintelligible  and  fictitious.  For  in- 
stance, we  are  told  that  we  cannot  of  our- 
selves be  righteous.  We  must  first  have  the 
grace  of  God.  Then  we  are  told  that  we 
cannot  have  the  grace  of  God  unless  he 
gives  it  to  us.  And  he  will  not  give  it  to 
us  unless  we  ask  for  it.    But  we  cannot  ask 


144  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

for  it,  unless  he  moves  us  to  ask  for  it.  And 
there  we  are.  We  shall  be  damned  if  we 
do  not  come  to  God,  and  we  cannot  come 
to  God  unless  he  calls  us.  Besides,  could 
anything  be  more  mythical  than  a  right- 
eousness which  can  only  be  imputed  to  us, — 
any  righteousness  of  our  own  being  but 
"filthy  rags?" 

The  Christian  religion  has  the  appearance 
of  being  one  great  myth,  constructed  out  of 
many  minor  myths.  It  is  the  same  with  Mo- 
hammedanism, or  Judaism,  which  latter  is  the 
mischievous  parent  of  both  the  Mohamme- 
dan and  the  Christian  faiths.  It  is  the  same 
with  all  supernatural  creeds.  Myth  is  the 
dominating  element  in  them  all.  Compared 
with  these  Asiatic  religions  how  glorious  is 
science!  How  wholesome,  helpful,  and  lumi- 
nous, are  her  commandments! 

If  I  were  to  command  you  to  believe  that 
Mount  Olympus  was  once  tenanted  by  blue- 
eyed  gods  and  their  consorts, — sipping 
nectar  and  ambrosia  the  live-long  day, — you 
will  answer,  "Oh,  that  is  only  mj^thology." 
If  I  were  to  tell  you  that  you  cannot  be 
saved  unless  you  believe  that  Minerva  was 
born  full-fledged  from  the  brain  of  Jupiter, 
you  will  laugh  at  me.    If  I  were  to  tell  you 


Is  Christianity  Real?  145 

that  you  must  punish  your  innocent  sons 
for  the  guilt  of  their  brothers  and  sisters, 
you  will  answer  that  I  insult  your  moral 
sense.  And  yet,  every  Sunday,  the  preacher 
repeats  the  myth  of  Adam  and  Eve,  and 
how  God  killed  his  innocent  son  to  please 
himself,  or  to  satisfy  the  devil,  and  with 
bated  breath,  and  on  your  knees,  you  whis- 
per, Amen. 

How  is  it  that  when  you  read  the  litera- 
ture of  the  Greeks,  the  literature  of  the  Per- 
sians, the  literature  of  Hindoostan,  or  of 
the  Mohammedan  world,  you  discriminate 
between  fact  and  fiction,  between  history 
and  myth,  but  when  it  comes  to  the  literature 
of  the  Jews,  you  stammer,  you  stutter,  you 
bite  your  lips,  you  turn  pale,  and  fall  upon 
your  face  before  it  as  the  savage  before 
his  fetish?  You  would  consider  it  unreason- 
able to  believe  that  everything  a  Greek,  or  a 
Roman,  or  an  Arab  ever  said  was  inspired. 
And  yet,  men  have  been  hounded  to  death 
for  not  believing  that  everything  that  a  Jew 
ever  said  in  olden  times  was  inspired. 

I  do  not  have  to  use  arguments,  I  hope, 
to  prove  to  an  intelligent  public  that  an 
infallible  book  is  as  much  a  mji:h  as  the 
Garden  of  Eden,  or  the  Star  of  Bethlehem. 


146  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

A  mythical  Savior,  a  mythical  Bible,  a  my- 
thical plan  of  salvation! 

When  we  subject  what  are  called  relig- 
ious truths  to  the  same  tests  by  which  we 
determine  scientific  or  historical  truths, 
we  discover  that  they  are  not  truths 
at  all;  they  are  only  opinions.  Any 
statement  which  snaps  under  the  strain  of 
reason  is  unworthy  of  credence.  But  it  is 
claimed  that  religious  truth  is  discovered  by 
intuition  and  not  by  investigation.  The  be- 
liever, it  is  claimed,  feels  in  his  own  soul — 
he  has  the  witness  of  the  spirit,  that  the 
Bible  is  infallible,  and  that  Jesus  is  the  Sa- 
vior of  man.  The  Christian  does  not  have  to 
look  into  the  arguments  for  or  against  his 
religion,  it  is  said,  before  he  makes  up  his 
mind;  he  knows  by  an  inward  assurance; 
he  has  proved  it  to  his  own  deepermost  be- 
ing that  Jesus  is  real  and  that  he  is  the 
only  Savior.  But  what  is  that  but  another 
kind  of  argument?  The  argument  is  quite 
inadequate  to  inspire  assurance,  as  you  will 
presently  see,  but  it  is  an  argument  never- 
theless. To  say  that  we  must  believe  and 
not  reason  is  a  kind  of  reasoning,  This 
device  of  reasoning  against  reasoning  is  re- 
sorted to  by  people  who  have  been  compelled 


Is  Christianity  Real?  147 


by  modern  thought  to  give  up,  one  after  an- 
other, the  strongholds  of  their  position. 
They  run  under  shelter  of  what  they  call 
faith,  or  the  "inward  witness  of  the  spirit," 
or  the  intuitive  argument,  hoping  thereby 
to  escape  the  enemy's  fire,  if  I  may  use  so 
objectionable  a  phrase. 

What  is  called  faith,  then,  or  an  intuitive 
spiritual  assurance,  is  a  species  of  reasoning; 
let  its  worth  be  tested  honestly. 

In  the  first  place,  faith  or  the  intuitive  ar- 
gument would  prove  too  much.    If  Jesus  is 
real,  notwithstanding  that  there  is  no  reli- 
able historical  data  to  warrant  the  belief, 
because  the  believer  feels  in  his  own  soul 
that    He    is    real    and    divine,    I    answer 
that,  the  same  mode  of  reasoning— and  let 
us  not  forget,  it  is  a  kind  of  reasoning- 
would  prove  Mohammed   a  divine   savior, 
and  the  wooden  idol  of  the  savage  a  god. 
The  African  Bushman  trembles  before  an 
image,  because  he  feels  in  his  own  soul  that 
the  thing  is  real.    Does  that  make  it  real? 
The  Moslem  cries  unto  INIohammed,  because 
he  believes  in  his  innermost  heart  that  ]Mo- 
hammed  is  near  and  can  hear  him.    He  will 
risk  his  life  on  that  assurance.     To  quote 
to  him  history  and  science  to  prove  that 


148  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

JMohammed  is  dead  and  unable  to  save, 
would  be  of  no  avail,  for  he  has  the  witness 
of  the  spirit  in  him,  an  intuitive  assurance, 
that  the  great  prophet  sits  on  the  right  hand 
of  Allah.  An  argument  which  proves  too 
much,  proves  nothing. 

In  the  second  place,  an  intuition  is  not 
communicable.  I  may  have  an  intuition  that 
I  see  spirits  all  about  me  this  morning.  They 
come,  they  go,  they  nod,  they  brush  my 
forehead  with  their  wings.  But  do  you  see 
them,  too,  because  I  see  them?  There  is  the 
difference  between  a  scientific  demonstra- 
tion and  a  purely  metaphysical  assumption. 
I  could  go  to  the  blackboard  and  assure  you, 
as  I  am  myself  assured,  that  two  parallel 
lines  running  in  the  same  direction  will  not 
and  cannot  meet.  That  is  demonstration. 
A  fever  patient  when  in  a  state  of  delirium, 
and  a  frightened  child  in  the  dark,  see 
things.  We  do  not  deny  that  they  do,  but 
their  testimony  does  not  prove  that  the 
things  they  see  are  real. 

"What  is  this  I  see  before  me?"  cries 
Macbeth,  the  murderer,  and  he  shrieks  and 
shakes  from  head  to  foot — he  draws  his 
sword  and  rushes  upon  Banquo's  ghost, 
which  he  sees  coldly  staring  at  him.    But  is 


Is  Christianity  Beat?  149 

that  any  proof  that  what  he  saw  we  could  see 
also  ?  Yes,  we  could,  if  we  were  in  the  same 
frenzy!  And  it  is  the  revivalist's  aim,  by 
creating  a  general  excitement,  to  make  ev- 
erybody see  things.  "Doctor,  Doctor,  help! 
they  are  coming  to  kill  me ;  there  they  are — 
the  assassins, — one,  two,  three — oh,  help," 
and  the  patient  jumps  out  of  bed  to  escape 
the  banditti  crowding  in  upon  him.  But  is 
that  any  reason  why  the  attending  physi- 
cian, his  pulse  normal  and  his  brow  cool, 
should  believe  that  the  room  is  filling  up 
with  assassins?  I  observe  people  jump  up 
and  down,  as  they  do  in  holiness  meetings ;  I 
hear  them  say  they  see  angels,  thej^  see 
Jesus,  they  feel  his  presence.  But  is  that 
any  evidence  for  you  or  me?  An  intuitive 
argument  is  not  communicable,  and,  there- 
fore, it  is  no  argument  at  all. 

Our  orthodox  friends  are  finally  driven 
by  modern  thought,  which  is  growing 
bolder  every  day,  to  the  only  refuge  left 
for  them.  It  is  the  one  already  mentioned. 
Granted  that  Jesus  was  an  imaginary  char- 
acter, even  then,  as  an  ideal,  they  argue,  he 
is  an  inspiration,  and  the  most  effective 
moral  force  the  world  has  ever  known.  We 
do  not  care,  they  say,  whether  the  story  of 


150  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

his  birth,  trial,  death,  and  resurrection  is 
myth  or  actual  history ;  such  a  man  as  Jesus 
may  never  have  existed,  the  things  he  is  re- 
ported as  saying  may  have  been  put  in  his 
mouth  by  others,  but  what  of  that — is  not 
the  picture  of  his  character  perfect?  Are 
not  the  Beatitudes  beautiful — no  matter 
who  said  them?  To  strengthen  this  posi- 
tion they  call  our  attention  to  Shakespeare's 
creations,  the  majority  of  whom — Hamlet, 
Othello,  Lear,  Portia,  Imogen,  Desdemona, 
are  fictitious.  Yet  where  are  there  grander 
men,  or  finer  women?  These  children  of 
Shakespeare  may  never  have  lived,  but, 
surely,  they  will  never  die.  In  the  same 
sense,  Jesus  may  be  just  as  ideal  a  character 
as  those  of  Shakespeare,  they  say,  and  still 
be  "the  hght  of  the  world."  A  New  York 
preacher  is  reported  as  saying  that  if  Chris- 
tianity is  a  lie,  it  is  a  "glorious  lie." 

My  answer  to  the  above  is  that  such  an 
argument  evades  instead  of  facing  the  ques- 
tion. It  is  receding  from  a  position  under 
cover  of  a  rhetorical  manoeuvre.  It  is  a  re- 
treat in  disguise.  If  Christianity  is  a  "glo- 
rious lie,"  then  call  it  such.  The  question 
under  discussion  is.  Is  Jesus  Historical?  To 
answer  that  it  is  immaterial  whether  or  not 


Is  Christianity  Real?  151 

he  is  historical,  is  to  admit  that  there  is  no 
evidence  that  he  is  historical.  To  urge  that, 
unhistorical  though  he  be,  he  is,  nevertheless, 
the  only  savior  of  the  world,  is,  I  regret  to 
say,  not  only  evasive, — not  only  does  it  beg 
the  question,  but  it  is  also  clearly  dishonest. 
How  long  will  the  tremendous  ecclesiastical 
machinery  last,  if  it  were  candidly  avowed 
that  it  is  doubtful  whether  there  ever  was 
such  a  historical  character  as  Jesus,  or  that 
in  all  probability  he  is  no  more  real  than  one 
of  Shakespeare's  creations?  What!  all  these 
prayers,  these  churches,  these  denominations, 
these  sectarian  wars  which  have  shed  oceans 
of  human  blood — these  unfortunate  perse- 
cutions which  have  blackened  the  face  of 
man — the  fear  of  hell  and  the  devil  which 
has  blasted  millions  of  lives — all  these  for  a 
Christ  who  may,  after  all,  be  only  a  picture  I 

Neither  is  it  true  that  this  pictorial  Jesus 
saved  the  world.  He  has  had  two  thousand 
years  to  do  it  in,  but  as  missionaries  are  still 
being  sent  out,  it  follows  that  the  world  is 
yet  to  be  saved.  The  argument  presented 
elsewhere  in  these  pages  may  here  be  re- 
capitulated. 

There  was  war  before  Christianity;  has 
Jesus  abolished  war? 


152  The  Truth  About  Jesus 


There  was  poverty  and  misery  in  the 
world  before  Christianity;  has  Jesus  re- 
moved these  evils? 

There  was  ignorance  in  the  world  before 
Christianity;  has  Jesus  destroyed  ignorance? 

There  were  disease,  crime,  persecution,  op- 
pression, slavery,  massacres,  and  bloodshed 
in  the  world  before  Christianity;  alas,  are 
they  not  still  with  us? 

When  Jesus  shall  succeed  in  pacifying 
his  own  disciples;  in  healing  the  sectarian 
world  of  its  endless  and  bitter  quarrels,  then 
it  will  be  time  to  ask  what  else  Jesus  has 
done  for  humanity. 

If  the  world  is  improving  at  all,  and  we 
believe  it  is,  the  progress  is  due  to  the  fact 
that  man  pays  now  more  attention  to  this 
life  than  formerly.  He  is  thinking  less  of 
the  other  world  and  more  of  this.  He  no 
longer  sings  with  the  believer: 

The  world  is  all  a  fleeting  show 

For  man's  delusion  given. 
Its  smiles  of  joy,  its  tears  of  woe, 
Deceitful  shine,  deceitful  flow, 

There's  nothing  true  but  heaven. 

How  could  people  with  such  feelings  la- 
bor to  improve  a  world  they  hated?  How 
could  they  be  in  the  least  interested  in  social 


Is  Christianity  Real?  153 


or  political  reforms  when  they  were  con- 
stantly repeating  to  themselves— 

I'm  a  pilgrim,  and  I'm  a  stranger— 
I  can  tarry,  I  can  tarry,  but  a  night. 
That  these  same  people  should  now  claim 
not  only  a  part  of  the  credit  for  the  many 
improvements,  but  all  of  it— saying  that, 
but  for  their  religion  the  "world  would  now 
have  been  a  hell,"*  is  really  a  little  toamuch 
for  even  the  most  serene  temperament. 

Which  of  the  religions  has  persecuted  as 
long  and  as  relentlessly  as  Christianity? 

Which  of  the  many  faiths  of  the  world 
has  opposed  Science  as  stubbornly  and  as 
bitterly  as  Christianity? 

In  the  name  of  what  other  prophets  have 
more  people  been  burned  at  the  stake  than 
in  the  names  of  Jesus  and  Moses? 

What  other  revelation  has  given  rise  to 
so  many  sects,  hostile  and  irreconcilable,  as 
the  Christian? 

Which  religion  has  furnished  as  many  ef- 
fective texts  for  pohtical  oppression,  polyg- 
amy, slavery,  and  the  subjection  of  woman 
as  the  religion  of  Jesus  and  Paul? 

Is  there, — has  there   ever  been   another 

♦Rev.   Frank   Gunsaulus,   of  the   Central   Church,    Chicago. 
llSee  A  New  Catechism. — M.  M.  Mangasarian. 


154  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

creed  which  makes  salvation  dependent  on 
belief, —  thereby  encouraging  hyprocrisy, 
and  making  honest  inquiry  a  crime? 

To  send  a  thief  to  heaven  from  the  gal- 
lovrs  because  he  believes,  and  an  honest  man 
to  hell  because  he  doubts,  is  that  the  virtue 
which  is  going  to  save  the  world? 

The  claim  that  Jesus  has  saved,  the  world 
is  another  myth. 

A  pictorial  Christ,  then,  has  not  done  any- 
thing for  humanity  to  deserve  the  tremen- 
dous expenditure  of  time,  energy,  love,  and 
devotion,  which  has  for  two  thousand  years 
taxed  the  resources  of  civilization. 

The  passing  away  of  this  imaginary 
savior  will  relieve  the  world  of  an  unpro- 
ductive investment. 

We  conclude :  Honesty,  like  charity,  must 
begin  at  home.  Unless  we  can  tell  the 
truth  in  our  churches  we  will  never  tell  the 
truth  in  our  shops.  Unless  our  teachers,  the 
ministers  of  God,  are  honest,  our  insurance 
companies  and  corporations  will  have  to  be 
watched.  Permit  sham  in  your  religious 
life,  and  the  disease  will  spread  to  every 
member  of  the  social  body.  If  you  may 
keep  rehgion  in  the  dark,  and  cry  "hush," 
**hush,"  when  people  ask  that  it  be  brought 


Is  Christianity  Real?  155 

out  into  the  light,  why  may  not  politics  or 
business  cultivate  a  similar  partiality  for 
darkness?  If  the  king  cries,  "rebel,"  when  a 
citizen  asks  for  justice,  it  is  because  he  has 
heard  the  priest  cry,  "infidel,"  when  a  mem- 
ber of  his  church  asked  for  evidence.  Reli- 
gious hypocrisy  is  the  mother  of  all  hypo- 
crisies. Cure  a  man  of  that,  and  the  human 
world  will  recover  its  health. 

Not  so  long  ago,  nearly  everybody  be- 
lieved in  the  existence  of  a  personal  devil. 
People  saw  him,  heard  him,  described  him, 
danced  with  him,  and  claimed,  besides,  to 
have  whipped  him.  Luther  hurled  his  ink- 
stand at  him,  and  American  women  accused 
as  witches  were  put  to  death  in  the  name  of 
the  devil.  Yet  all  this  "evidence"  has 
not  saved  the  devil  from  passing  out 
of  existence.  What  has  happened  to  the 
devil  will  happen  to  the  gods.  Man  is  the 
only  real  savior.  If  he  is  not  a  savior, 
there  is  no  other. 


The   Hindu   Trinity. 


PART  II. 

IS  THE  WORLD  INDEBTED  TO 
CHRISTIANITY? 

"But,"  says  the  believer,  again,  as  a  last 
resort,  "Jesus,  whether  real  or  mythical,  has 
certainly  saved  the  world,  and  is  its  only 
hope."  If  this  assertion  can  be  supported 
with  facts,  then  surely  it  would  matter  very 
little  whether  Jesus  really  lived  and  taught, 
or  whether  he  is  a  mere  picture.  Although 
even  then  it  would  be  more  truthful  to  say 

156 


Is  the  World  Indebted  to  Christianity?  157 

we  have  no  satisfactory  evidence  that  such 
a  teacher  as  Jesus  ever  lived,  than  to  affirm 
dogmatically  his  existence,  as  it  is  now  done. 
Whatever  Jesus  may  have  done  for  the 
world,  he  has  certainly  not  freed  us  from 
the  obligation  of  telling  the  truth.  I  call 
special  attention  to  this  point.  Because 
Jesus  has  saved  the  world,  granting  for  the 
moment  that  he  has,  is  no  reason  why  we 
should  be  indifferent  to  the  truth.  Nay,  it 
would  show  that  Jesus  has  not  saved  the 
world,  if  we  can  go  on  and  speak  of  him  as 
an  actual  existence,  born  of  a  virgin  and 
risen  from  the  dead,  and  in  his  name  per- 
secute one  another — oppose  the  advance  of 
science,  deny  freedom  of  thought,  terrorize 
children  and  women  with  pictures  of  hell- 
fii'e  and  seek  to  establish  a  spiritual  monop- 
oly in  the  world,  when  the  evidence  in  hand 
seems  clearly  to  indicate  that  such  a  person 
never  existed. 

We  shall  quote  a  chapter  from  Chris- 
tian history  to  give  our  readers  an  idea  of 
how  much  the  religion  of  Jesus,  when  im- 
plicitly believed  in,  can  do  for  the  world. 
We  have  gone  to  the  earliest  centuries  for 
our  examples  of  the  influence  exerted  by 
Christianity  upon  the  ambitions  and  pas- 


158  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

sions  of  human  nature,  because  it  is  gener- 
ally supposed  that  Christianity  was  then  at 
its  best.  Let  us,  then,  present  a  picture  of 
the  world,  strictly  speaking,  of  the  Roman 
Empire,  during  the  first  four  or  five  hun- 
dred years  after  its  conversion  to  Christi- 
anity. 

We  select  this  specific  period,  because 
Christianity  was  at  this  time  fifteen  hundred 
years  nearer  to  its  source,  and  was  more 
virile  and  aggressive  than  it  has  ever  been 
since. 

Shakespeare  speaks  of  the  uses  of  ad- 
versity; but  the  uses  of  prosperity  are  even 
greater.  The  proverb  says  that  "adversity 
tries  a  man."  While  there  is  considerable 
truth  in  this,  the  fact  is  that  prosperity  is 
a  much  surer  criterion  of  character.  It  is 
impossible  to  tell,  for  instance,  what  a  man 
will  do  who  has  neither  the  power  nor  the 
opportunity  to  do  anything.  "Opportun- 
ity," says  a  French  writer,  "is  the  cleverest 
devil."  Both  our  good  and  bad  qualities 
wait  upon  opportunity  to  show  themselves. 
It  is  quite  easy  to  be  virtuous  when  the  op- 
portunity to  do  evil  is  lacking.  Behind  the 
prison  bars,  every  criminal  is  a  penitent,  but 
the  credit  belongs  to  the  iron  bars  and  not 


Is  the  World  Indebted  to  Christianity?  159 

to  the  criminal.  To  be  good  when  one  can- 
not be  bad,  is  an  indifferent  virtue. 

It  is  with  institutions  and  religions  as 
with  individuals — they  should  be  judged 
not  by  what  they  pretend  in  their  weakness, 
but  by  what  they  do  when  they  are  strong. 
Christianity,  Mohammedanism  and  Juda- 
ism, the  three  kindred  religions — w^e  call 
them  kindred  because  they  are  related  in 
blood  and  are  the  offspring  of  the  same 
soil  and  climate — these  three  kindred  reli- 
gions must  be  interpreted  not  by  what  they 
profess  today,  but  by  what  they  did  when 
they  had  both  the  power  and  the  opportun- 
ity to  do  as  they  wished. 

When  Christianity,  or  Mohammedanism, 
was  professed  only  by  a  small  handful  of 
men — twelve  fishermen,  or  a  dozen  camel- 
drivers  of  the  desert  —  neither  party  ad- 
vocated persecution.  The  worst  punishment 
which  either  religion  held  out  was  a  distant 
and  a  future  punisliment;  but  as  soon  as 
Christianity  converted  an  Emperor,  or  Mo- 
hammed became  the  victorious  warrior, — 
that  is  to  say,  as  soon  as,  springing  forth, 
they  picked  up  the  sword  and  felt  their  grip 
sure  upon  its  hilt,  this  future  and  distant 
punisliment  materialized  into  a  present  and 


160  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

persistent  persecution  of  their  opponents. 
Is  not  that  suggestive?  Then,  again,  when 
in  the  course  of  human  evolution,  both 
Christianity  and  Mohammedanism  lost  the 
secular  support — the  throne,  the  favor  of 
the  courts,  the  imperial  treasury — they  fell 
back  once  more  upon  future  penalties  as 
the  sole  menace  against  an  unbelieving 
world.  As  religion  grows,  secularly  speak- 
ing, weaker,  and  is  more  completely  di- 
vorced from  the  temporal,  even  the  future 
penalties,  from  being  both  literal  and  fright- 
ful, pale  into  harmless  figures  of  speech. 

It  was  but  a  short  time  after  the  conver- 
sion of  the  Emperor  Constantine,  that  the 
following  edict  was  published  throughout 
the  provinces  of  the  Roman  Empire: 

"O  ye  enemies  of  truth,  authors  and  coun- 
sellors of  death — we  enact  by  this  law  that  none 
of  you  dare  hereafter  to  meet  at  your  conventi- 
cles .  .  .  nor  keep  any  meetings  either  in  public 
buildings  or  private  houses.  We  have  com- 
manded that  all  your  places  of  meeting — your 
temples — ^be  pulled  down  or  confiscated  to  the 
Catholic  Church." 

The  man  who  affixed  his  signature  to  this 
edict  was  a  monarch,  that  is  to  say,  a  man 
who  had  the  power  to  do  as  he  liked.    The 


Is  the  World  Indebted  to  Christianity?  161 

man  and  monarch,  then,  who  affixed  his  im- 
perial signature  to  this  first  document  of 
persecution  in  Europe — the  first,  because, 
as  Renan  has  beautifully  remarked,  "We 
may  search  in  vain  the  whole  Roman  law 
before  Constantine  for  a  single  passage 
against  freedom  of  thought,  and  the  his- 
tory of  the  imperial  government  furnishes 
no  instance  of  a  prosecution  for  entertain- 
ing an  abstract  doctrine," — this  is  glory 
enough  for  the  civilization  which  we  call 
Pagan  and  which  was  replaced  by  the 
Asiatic  religion — the  man  and  the  mon- 
arch who  fathered  the  first  instrument  of 
persecution  in  our  Europe,  who  introduced 
into -our  midst  the  crazed  hounds  of  reli- 
gious wars,  unknown  either  in  Greece  or 
Rome,  Constantine,  has  been  held  up  by 
Cardinal  Newman  as  "a  pattern  to  all  suc- 
ceeding monarchs."  Only  an  Englishman,  a 
European,  infected  with  the  malady  of  the 
East,  could  hold  up  the  author  of  such  an 
edict, — an  edict  which  prostitutes  the  State 
to  the  service  of  a  fad — as  "a  pattern." 

If  we  asked  for  a  modern  illustration  of 
what  a  church  will  do  when  it  has  the  power, 
there  is  the  example  of  Russia.  Russia  is 
today  centuries  behind  the  other  European 


162  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

nations.  She  is  the  most  unfortunate,  the 
most  ignorant,  the  most  poverty-pinched 
country,  with  the  most  orthodox  type  of 
Christianity.  What  is  the  difference  be- 
tween Greek  Christianity,  such  as  prevails 
in  Russia,  and  American  Christianity? 
Only  this:  The  Christian  Church  in  Rus- 
sia has  both  the  power  and  the  opportunity 
to  do  things,  while  the  Christian  church  in 
America  or  in  France  has  not.  We  must 
judge  Christianity  as  a  religion  by  what  it 
does  in  Russia,  more  than  by  what  it  does 
not  do  in  France  or  America.  There  was 
a  time  when  the  church  did  in  France  and 
in  England  what  it  is  doing  now  in  Rus- 
sia, which  is  a  further  confirmation  of  the 
fact  that  a  religion  must  be  judged  not  by 
what  it  pretends  in  its  weakness,  but  by 
what  it  does  when  it  can.  In  Russia,  the 
priest  can  tie  a  man's  hands  and  feet 
and  deliver  him  up  to  the  govern- 
ment; and  it  does  so.  In  Protestant  coun- 
tries, the  church,  being  deprived  of  all  its 
badges  and  prerogatives,  is  more  modest 
and  humble.  The  poet  Heine  gives  elo- 
quent expression  to  this  idea  when  he  says: 
"Religion  comes  begging  to  us,  when  it 
can  no  longer  burn  us." 


Is  the  World  Indebted  to  Christianity?  163 

There  will  be  no  revolution  in  Russia, 
nor  even  any  radical  improvement  of  exist- 
ing conditions,  so  long  as  the  Greek  Church 
has  the  education  of  the  masses  in  charge. 
To  become  politically  free,  men  must  first 
be  intellectually  emancipated.  If  a  Rus- 
sian is  not  permitted  to  choose  his  own  re- 
ligion, will  he  be  permitted  to  choose  his 
own  form  of  government?  If  he  will  al- 
low a  priest  to  impose  his  religion  upon 
him,  why  may  he  not  permit  the  Czar  to 
impose  despotism  upon  him?  If  it  is 
wrong  for  him  to  question  the  tenets  of  his 
religion,  is  it  not  equally  wrong  for  him 
to  discuss  the  laws  of  his  government?  If 
a  slave  of  the  church,  why  may  he  not  be 
also  a  slave  of  the  state?  If  there  is  room 
upon  his  neck  for  the  yoke  of  the  church, 
there  will  be  room,  also,  for  the  yoke  of 
the  autocracy.  If  he  is  in  the  habit  of  bend- 
ing his  knees,  what  difference  does  it  make 
to  how  many  or  to  whom  he  bends  them? 

Not  until  Russia  has  become  religiously 
emancipated,  will  she  conquer  political  free- 
dom. She  must  first  cast  out  of  her  mind 
the  fear  of  the  church,  before  she  can  enter 
into  the  glorious  fellowship  of  the  free.  In 
Turkey,  all  the  misery  of  the  people  will 


164  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

not  so  much  as  cause  a  ripple  of  discontent, 
because  the  Moslem  has  been  brought  up  to 
submit  to  the  Sultan  as  to  the  shadow  on 
earth  of  Allah.  Both  in  Russia  and  Tur- 
key, the  protestants  are  the  heretics.  The 
orthodox  Turk  and  the  orthodox  Christian 
permit  without  a  murmur  both  the  priest 
and  the  king  to  impose  upon  them  at  the 
point  of  a  bayonet,  the  one  his  religion,  and 
the  other  his  government.  It  is  only  by 
taking  the  education  of  the  masses  out  of 
the  hands  of  the  clergy  that  either  coun- 
try can  enjoy  any  prosperity.  Orthodoxy 
and  autocracy  are  twins. 

Let  me  now  try  to  present  to  you  a  pic- 
ture of  the  world  under  Christianity  about 
the  year  400  of  the  present  era.  Let  us 
discuss  this  phase  of  the  subject  in  a  liberal 
spirit,  extenuating  nothing,  nor  setting 
down  aught  in  malice.  Please  interpret 
what  I  say  in  the  next  few  minutes  meta- 
phorically, and  pardon  me  if  my  picture  is 
a  repellant  one. 

We  are  in  the  year  of  our  Lord,  400: 

I  rose  up  early  this  morning  to  go  to 

church.  As  I  approached  the  building,  I  saw 

there  a  great  multitude  of  people  unable 

to  secure  admission  into  the  edifice.     The 


Is  the  World  Indebted  to  Christianity?  165 

huge  iron  doors  were  closed,  and  upon  them 
was  affixed  a  notice  from  the  authorities,  to 
the  effect  that  all  who  worshiped  in  this 
church  would,  by  the  authority  of  the  state, 
be  known  and  treated  hereafter  as  "in- 
famous heretics,"  and  be  exposed  to  the 
extreme  penalty  of  the  law  if  they  per- 
sisted in  holding  services  there.  But  the 
party  to  which  I  belonged  heeded  not  the 
prohibition,  but  beat  against  the  doors  furi- 
ously and  eifected  an  entrance  into  the 
church.  The  excitement  ran  high;  men  and 
leaders  shouted,  gesticulated  and  came  to 
blows.  The  Archbishop  was  urged  to  as- 
cend his  episcopal  throne  and  officiate  at 
the  altar  in  spite  of  the  formal  interdiction 
against  him.  He  consented.  But  he  had 
not  proceeded  far  when  soldiers,  with  a 
wild  rush,  poured  into  the  building  and  be- 
gan to  discharge  arrows  at  the  panic- 
stricken  people.  Instantly  pandemonium 
was  let  loose.  The  officers  commanding  the 
soldiers  demanded  the  head  of  the  offend- 
ing Archbishop.  The  worshipers  made  an 
attempt  to  resist;  then  blood  was  shed,  the 
sight  of  which  reeled  people's  heads,  and, 
in  an  instant,  the  sanctuary  was  turned  into 
a  house  of  murder.     Taking  advantage  of 


166 


The  Truth  About  Jesus 


the  uproar,  the  Archbishop,  assisted  by  his 
secretaries,  escaped  through  a  secret  door 
behind  the  altar. 

On  my  way  home  from  this  terrible  scene, 


Engraving  of  XV  Century  Representing  the  Trinity. 

I  fell  upon  a  procession  of  monks.  They 
were  carrying  images  and  relics,  and  a 
banner   upon    which   were   inscribed   these 


Is  the  World  Indebted  to  Christianity?  167 

words:  "The  Virgin  Mary,  Mother  of 
God."  As  they  marched  on,  their  number 
increased  by  new  additions.  But  suddenly 
they  encountered  another  band  of  monks, 
carrying  a  different  banner,  bearing  the 
same  words  which  were  on  the  other  party's 
banner,  but  instead  of  "The  Virgin  Mary, 
Mother  of  God,"  their  banner  read:  "The 
Virgin  Mary,  JNIother  of  Jesus  Christ." 
The  two  processions  clashed,  and  a  bloody 
encounter  followed;  in  an  instant  images, 
relics  and  banners  were  all  in  an  indiscrimi- 
nate heap.  The  troops  were  called  out 
again,  but  such  was  the  zeal  of  the  con- 
flicting parties  that  not  until  the  majority 
of  them  were  disabled  and  exhausted,  was 
tranquility  restored. 

Looking  about  me,  I  saw  the  spire  of  a 
neighboring  church.  My  curiosity  prompt- 
ed me  to  wend  my  steps  thither.  As  soon 
as  I  entered,  I  was  recognized  as  belong- 
ing to  the  forbidden  sect,  and  in  an  instant 
a  hundred  fists  rained  down  blows  upon  my 
head.  "He  has  polluted  the  sanctuary," 
they  cried.  "He  has  committed  sacrilege." 
"No  quarter  to  the  enemies  of  the  true 
church,"  cried  others,  and  it  was  a  miracle 
that,  beaten,  bruised,  my  clothes  torn  from 


168  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

my  back,  I  regained  the  street.  A  few  sec- 
onds later,  looking  up  the  streets,  I  saw 
another  troop  of  soldiers,  rushing  down  to- 
ward this  church  at  full  speed.  It  seems 
that  while  I  was  being  beaten  in  the  main 
auditorium,  in  the  baptistry  of  the  church 
they  were  killing,  in  cold  blood,  the  Arch- 
bishop, who  was  suspected  of  a  predilection 
for  the  opposite  party,  and  who  had  refused 
to  retract  or  resign  from  his  office.  The 
next  day  I  heard  that  one  hundred  and 
thirty-seven  bodies  were  taken  out  of  this 
building. 

Seized  with  terror,  I  now  began  to  run, 
but,  alas,  I  had  worse  experiences  in  store 
for  me.  I  was  compelled  to  pass  the  prin- 
cipal square  in  the  center  of  the  city  be- 
fore I  could  reach  a  place  of  safety.  When 
I  reached  this  square,  it  had  the  appearance 
of  a  veritable  battlefield.  It  was  Sunday 
morning,  and  the  partisans  of  rival  bishops, 
differing  in  their  interpretation  of  theo- 
logical doctrines,  were  fighting  each  other 
like  maddened,  malignant  creatures.  One 
could  hear,  over  the  babel  of  discordant 
yells,  scriptural  phrases.  The  words,  "The 
Son  is  equal  to  the  Father,"  "The  Father 
is  greater  than  the  Son,"  "He  is  begotten 


Is  the  World  Indebted  to  Christianity?  169 

of  the  same  substance  as  the  Father,"  "He 
is  of  hke  substance,  but  not  of  the  same  sub- 
stance," "You  are  a  heretic,"  "You  are  an 
atheist,"  were  invariably  accompanied  with 
blows,  stabs  and  sword  thrusts,  until,  as  an 
eye-witness,  I  can  take  an  oath  that  I  saw 
the  streets  leading  out  of  the  square  deluged 
with  palpitating  human  blood.  Suddenly 
the  commander  of  the  cavalry,  Hermo- 
genes,  rode  upon  the  scene  of  feud  and 
bloodshed.  He  ordered  the  followers  of 
the  rival  bishops  to  disperse,  but  instead  of 
minding  his  authority,  the  zealots  of  both 
sides  rushed  upon  his  horse,  tore  the  rider 
from  the  saddle  and  began  to  beat  him  with 
clubs  and  stones  which  they  picked  up  from 
the  street.  He  managed  to  escape  into  a 
house  close  by,  but  the  religious  rabble  sur- 
rounded the  house  and  set  fire  to  it.  Her- 
mogenes  appeared  at  the  window,  begging 
for  his  life.  He  was  attacked  again,  and 
killed,  and  his  mangled  body  dragged 
through  the  streets  and  rushed  into  a  ditch. 
The  spectacle  inflamed  me,  being  a  sec- 
tarian myself.  I  felt  ashamed  that  I  was 
not  showing  an  equal  zeal  for  my  party. 
I,  too,  longed  to  fight,  to  kill,  to  be  killed, 
for  my  religion.     And,  anon!  the  oppor- 


170  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

tunity  presented  itself.  I  saw,  looking  up 
the  street  to  my  right,  a  group  of  my  fel- 
low-believers, who,  like  myself,  shut  out  of 
their  own  church  by  the  orthodox  authori- 
ties, armed  with  whips  loaded  with  lead  and 
with  clubs,  were  entering  a  house.  I  fol- 
lowed them.  As  we  went  in,  we  commanded 
the  head  of  the  family  and  his  wife  to  ap- 
pear. When  they  did,  we  asked  them  if 
it  was  true  that  in  their  prayers  to  Mary 
they  had  refrained  from  the  use  of  the 
words,  "The  mother  of  God."  They  hesi- 
tated to  give  a  direct  answer,  whereupon 
we  used  the  club,  and  then,  the  scourge. 
Then  they  said  they  believed  in  and  revered 
the  blessed  virgin,  but  would  not,  even  if 
we  killed  them,  say  that  she  was  the  mother 
of  God.  This  obstinacy  exasperated  us  and 
we  felt  it  to  be  our  religious  duty,  for  the 
honor  of  our  divine  Queen,  to  perpetrate 
such  cruelties  upon  them  as  would  shock 
your  gentle  ears  to  hear.  We  held  them 
over  slowly  burning  fires,  flung  lime  into 
their  eyes,  applied  roasted  eggs  and  hot 
irons  to  the  sensitive  parts  of  their  bodies, 
and  even  gagged  them  to  force  the  sacra- 
ment into  their  mouths As 

we  went  from  house  to  house,  bent  upon 


Is  the  World  Indebted  to  Christianitij?  171 

our  mission,  I  remember  an  expression  of 
one  of  the  party  who  said  to  the  poor 
woman  who  was  begging  for  mercy: 
-Whatl  shall  I  be  guilty  of  defraudmg  the 
vengeance  of  God  of  its  victims?"  A  sud- 
den chill  ran  down  my  back.  I  felt  my 
flesh  creep.     Like  a  drop   of  poison  the 


Trinity    in    XIII    Century. 

thought  embodied  in  those  words  perverted 
whatever  of  pity  or  humanity  was  left  in 
me,  and  I  felt  that  I  was  only  helping  to 
secure  victims  with  which  to  feed  the  ven- 
geance of  God! 

I  was  ^villing  to  be  a  monster  for  the 

glory  of  God! 

The  Christian  sect  to  which  I  belonged 


172  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

was  one  of  the  oldest  in  Christendom.  Our 
ancestors  were  called  the  Puritans  of  the 
fourth  and  fifth  centuries.  We  beheve  that 
no  one  can  be  saved  outside  of  our  com- 
munion. When  a  Christian  of  another 
church  joins  us,  we  re-baptize  him,  for  we 
do  not  believe  in  the  validity  of  other  bap- 
tisms. We  are  so  particular  that  we  deny 
our  cemeteries  to  any  other  Christians  than 
our  own  members.  If  we  find  that  we  have, 
by  mistake,  buried  a  member  of  another 
church  in  our  cemetery,  we  dig  up  his  bones, 
that  he  may  not  pollute  the  soil.  When  one 
of  the  churches  of  another  denomination 
falls  into  our  hands,  we  first  fumigate  the 
building,  and  with  a  sharp  knife  we  scrape 
the  wood  off  the  altars  upon  which  other 
Christian  priests  have  offered  prayers.  We 
will,  under  no  consideration,  allow  a  brother 
Christian  from  another  church  to  conmiune 
with  us ;  if  by  stealth  anyone  does,  we  spare 
not  his  life.  But  we  are  persecuted  just  as 
severely  as  we  persecute,  ourselves.* 

As  the  sun  was  setting,  fatigued  with  the 
holy  Sabbath's  religious  duties,  I  started  to 

*This  sect  (Donatist)  and  others,  lasted  for  a  long  time,  and 
made  Asia  and  Africa  a  hornet's  nest, — a  blood-stained  arena,  of 
feud  and  riot  and  massacre,  until  Mohammedanism  put  an  end,  in 
these  parts  of  the  world,  not  only  to  these  sects,  but  to  Chris- 
tianity itself. 


Is  the  World  Indebted  to  Christianity?  173 

go  home.  On  my  way  back,  I  saw  even 
wilder,  bloodier  scenes,  between  rival  eccle- 
siastical factions,  streets  even  redder  with 
blood,  if  possible,  yea,  certain  sections  of 
the  city  seemed  as  if  a  storm  of  hail,  or 
tongues  of  flame  had  swept  over  them. 
Churches  were  on  fire,  cowled  monks  at- 
tacking bishops'  residences,  rival  prelates 
holding  uproarious  debates,  which  almost 
always  terminated  in  bloodshed,  and,  to  cap 
the  day  of  many  vicissitudes,  I  saw  a  bear 
on  exhibition  which  had  been  given  its  free- 
dom by  the  ruler,  as  a  reward  for  his  faith- 
ful services  in  devouring  heretics.  The 
Christian  ruler  kept  two  fierce  bears  by  his 
own  chamber,  to  which  those  who  did  not 
hold  the  orthodox  faith  were  thrown  in  his 
presence  while  he  listened  with  delight  to 
their  groans. 

When  I  reached  home,  I  was  panting  for 
breath.  I  had  lived  through  another  Sab- 
bath day.* 

I  feel  like  covering  my  face  for  telling 
you  so  grewsome  a  tale.    But  if  this  were 


*If  the  reader  will  take  the  pains  to  read  Dean  Milman's  His- 
tory of  Christianity,  and  his  History  of  Latin  Ohristiantiy ;  alao 
Gibbon's  Downfall  of  the  Roman  Empire,  and  Mosheim's  History 
of  Christianity,  he  will  see  that  we  have  exaggerated  nothing. 
The  Athanasian  and  the  Arian,  the  Donatist  and  Sabeltian,  the 
Nestorian  and  Alexandrian  factions  converted  the  early  centuries 
into  a  long  reign  of  terror. 


174  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

the  fourth  or  the  fifth  century,  instead  of 
the  twentieth,  and  this  were  Constantino- 
ple, or  Alexandria,  or  Antioch,  instead  of 
Chicago,  I  would  have  spent  just  such  a 
Sunday  as  I  have  described  to  you.  In  giv- 
ing you  this  concentrated  view  of  human 
society  in  the  great  capitals  of  Christendom 
in  the  year  400,  I  have  restrained,  rather 
than  spurred,  my  imagination.  Remember, 
also,  that  I  have  confined  my  remarks  to  a 
specific  and  short  period  in  history,  and 
have  excluded  from  my  generalization  all 
reference  to  the  centuries  of  religious  wars 
which  tore  Europe  limb  from  limb, —  the 
wholesale  exterminations,  the  crusades, 
which  represented  one  of  the  maddest  spells 
of  misguided  and  costly  zeal  which  ever 
struck  our  earth,  the  persecution  of  the 
Huguenots,  the  extermination  of  the  Albi- 
genses  and  of  the  Waldenses, — the  massacre 
of  St.  Bartholomew,  the  Inquisition  with 
its  red  hand  upon  the  intellect  of  Europe, 
the  Anabaptist  outrages  in  Germany,  the 
Smithfield  fires  in  England,  the  religious 
outrages  in  Scotland,  the  Puritan  excesses 
in  America, — the  reign  of  witchcraft  and 
superstition  throughout  the  twenty  centur- 
ies— I  have  not  touched  my  picture  with  any 


Is  the  World  Indebted  to  Christianity?  175 

colors  borrowed  from  these  terrible  chap- 
ters in  the  history  of  our  unfortunate  earth. 
I  have  also  left  out  all  reference  to  Papal 
Rome,  with  its  dungeons,  its  stakes,  its  mas- 
sacres and  its  burnings.  I  have  said  noth- 
ing of  Galileo,  Vanini,  Campanella  or 
Bruno.  I  have  passed  over  all  this  in  si- 
lence. You  can  imagine,  now,  how  much 
more  repellant  and  appalling  this  represen- 
tation of  the  Roman  world  under  Christi- 
anity would  have  been  had  I  stretched  my 
canvas  to  include  also  these  later  centuries. 
But  I  tremble  to  be  one-sided  or  unjust, 
and  so  I  hasten  to  say  that  during  the 
twenty  centuries'  reign  of  our  religion,  the 
world  has  also  seen  some  of  the  fairest  flow- 
ers spring  out  of  the  soil  of  our  earth.  Dur- 
ing the  past  twenty  centuries  there  have 
been  men  and  women,  calling  themselves 
Christians,  who  have  been  as  generous,  as 
heroic  and  as  deeply  consecrated  to  high 
ideals  as  any  the  world  has  ever  produced. 
Christianity  has,  in  many  instances,  soft- 
ened the  manners  of  barbarians  and  ele- 
vated the  moral  tone  of  primitive  peoples. 
It  gives  us  more  pleasure  to  speak  of  the 
good  which  religions  have  accomplished 
than  to  call  attention  to  the  evil  they  have 


176  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

caused.  But  this  raises  a  very  important 
question.  "Why  do  you  not  confine  your- 
self," we  are  often  asked,  "to  the  virtues 
you  find  in  Christianity  or  Mohammedan- 
ism, instead  of  discussing  so  frequently 
their  short-comings?  Is  it  not  better  to 
praise  than  to  blame,  to  recommend  than  to 
find  fault?"  This  is  a  fair  question,  and 
we  may  just  as  well  meet  it  now  as  at  any 
other  time. 

Such  is  the  economy  of  nature  that  no 
man,  or  institution  or  religion,  can  be  alto- 
gether evil.  The  poet  spoke  the  truth  when 
he  said:  "There  is  a  soul  of  goodness  in 
things  evil."  Evil,  in  a  large  sense,  is  the 
raw  material  of  the  good.  All  things  con- 
tribute to  the  education  of  man.  The  ques- 
tion, then,  whether  an  institution  is  helpful 
or  hurtful,  is  a  relative  one.  The  character 
of  an  institution,  as  that  of  an  individual, 
is  determined  by  its  ruling  passion.  Despot- 
ism, for  instance,  is  generally  considered 
to  be  an  evil.  And  yet,  a  hundred  good 
things  can  be  said  of  despotism.  The 
French  people,  over  a  hundred  years  ago, 
overthrew  the  monarchy.  And  yet  the  mon- 
archy had  rendered  a  thousand  services  to 
France.    It  was  the  monarchy  that  created 


Is  the  World  Indebted  to  Christianity?  177 

France,  that  extended  her  territory,  devel- 
oped her  commerce,  built  her  great  cities, 
defended  her  frontiers  against  foreign  in- 
vasion, and  gave  her  a  place  among  the  first- 
class  nations  of  Europe.  Was  it  just,  then, 
to  pull  down  an  institution  that  had  done  so 
much  for  France? 

Why  did  the  Americans  overthrow  Brit- 
ish rule  in  this  country?  Had  not  England 
rendered  innumerable  services  to  the  col- 
ony? Was  she  not  one  of  the  most  pro- 
gressive, most  civilizing  influences  in  the 
modern  world?  Was  it  just,  then,  that  we 
should  have  beaten  out  of  the  land  a  govern- 
ment that  had  performed  for  us  so  many 
friendly  acts? 

Referring  once  more  to  the  case  of  Rus- 
sia: Why  do  the  awakened  people  in  that 
country  demand  the  overthrow  of  the  auto- 
cracy? Is  there  nothing  good  to  be  said 
of  Russian  autocracy?  Have  not  the  Czars 
loved  their  country  and  fought  for  her  pros- 
perity? Have  they  not  brought  Russia  up 
to  her  present  size,  population  and  political 
influence  in  Europe?  Have  they  not  beau- 
tified her  cities  and  enacted  laws  for  the 
protection  of  their  subjects?  Is  it  right, 
then,  in  spite  of  all  these  things  that  auto- 


178  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

cracy  has  done  for  Russia,  to  seek  to  over- 
throw it? 

Once  more:  Why  do  the  missionaries  go 
into  India  and  China  and  Japan  trying  to 
replace  the  ancestral  religion  of  these  peo- 
ple with  the  Christian  faith?  Why  does  the 
missionary  labor  to  overthrow  the  worship 
of  Buddha,  Confucius  and  Zoroaster? 
Have  not  these  great  teachers  helped  hu- 
manity? Have  they  not  rendered  any  serv- 
ices to  their  countrymen?  Are  there  no 
truths  in  their  teachings?  Are  there  no  vir- 
tues in  their  lives?     Is  it  right,  then,  that 


Conception   of    Trinity, 
Ninth    Century. 

the  missionary  should  criticise  these  ancient 
faiths  ? 

Let  us  take  an  example  from  nearer 
home.  We  were  talking  some  years  ago  with 
a  gentleman  who  had  just  returned  from 
Dowie's  Zion.     He  was  surprised  to  find 


Is  the  World  Indebted  to  Christianity?  179 

there  a  clean,  orderly  and  well-behaved  peo- 
ple, apparently  quite  happy.  He  said  that 
after  his  experiences  there,  he  would  rather 
do  business  with  Dowie  and  his  men  than 
with  the  average  member  of  other  religious 
bodies.  He  found  the  Dowieites  honest, 
reliable  and  peaceful.  Now,  all  this  may 
be  true,  and  I  hope  it  is;  but  what  of  it? 
Dowieism  is  an  evil,  notwithstanding  this 
recital  of  its  virtues.  It  is  an  evil,  because 
it  arrests  the  intellectual  development  of 
man,  because  it  makes  dwarfs  of  the  people 
it  converts,  because  it  pinches  the  forehead 
of  each  convert  into  that  of  either  a  charla- 
tan or  an  idiot.  We  regret  to  have  to  use 
these  harsh  terms.  But  Dowieism  is  de- 
nounced, because  it  brings  up  human  beings 
as  if  they  were  sheep,  because  it  robs  them 
of  the  most  glorious  gift  of  life,  the  free- 
dom to  grow,  Dowieism  is  an  evil,  because  it 
makes  the  human  race  mediocre  by  con- 
tracting its  intellect  down  to  the  measure  of 
a  creed.  We  would  much  rather  that  the 
Dowieites  smoked  and  drank  and  swore, 
than  that  they  should  fear  to  think.  There 
is  hope  for  a  bad  man.  There  is  no  hope 
for  the  stupid. 

In  the  case  of  an  institution  or  a  religion. 


180  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

then,  it  is  not  by  adding  up  the  debit  and 
credit  columns  and  striking  a  balance  sheet 
that  the  question  whether  it  has  helped  or 
hurt  mankind  is  to  be  determined.  We  can- 
not, for  instance,  place  ninety-nine  vices  in 
one  column,  and  a  hundred  virtues  in  an- 
other, and  conclude  therefrom  that  the 
institution  or  the  religion  should  be  pre- 
served. Nor,  conversely  speaking,  can  we 
place  a  hundred  vices  against  ninety-nine 
virtues,  and,  therefore,  condemn  the  insti- 
tution. Even  as  a  man  is  hanged  for  one 
act  in  his  life,  in  spite  of  the  thousand  good 
acts  which  may  be  quoted  against  the  one 
evil  deed,  so  an  institution  or  a  religion  is 
honored  or  condemned,  as  we  said  above, 
for  its  ruling  passion.  Mohammedanism, 
Judaism  and  Christianity  have  done  much 
good,  just  as  other  religions  have,  but  they 
are  condemned  today  by  modern  thought, 
because  they  are  a  conspiracy  against  rea- 
son— because  they  combat  progress,  as  if  it 
were  a  crime! 

Another  criticism  frequently  advanced 
against  us  is  that  we  fail  to  realize  that  all 
the  evil  of  which  Christianity  is  said  to  have 
been  the  cause,  is  only  the  result  of  human 
ignorance  and  passion.    When  attention  is 


l8  the  World  Indebted  to  Christianity?  181 

called,  for  instance,  to  the  intolerance  and 
stubborn  opposition  to  science,  of  Christian- 
ity, the  answer  given  is,  that  this  conduct 
is  not  only  not  inspired  by  the  spirit  of 
Christianity,  but  that  it  is  in  direct  contra- 
diction to   its   teachings.      The    Christians 
claim  that  all  the  luminous  chapters  in  his- 
tory have  been  inspired  by  their  rehgion, 
aU   its    sorrowful    and   black    pages   have 
been    ^^Titten    by    the    passions    of    men. 
But    this    apology,    which,    we    regret    to 
say,  is  in  every  preacher's  mouth   is  not  an 
honest  one.     In  our  opinion,  both  Moham- 
medanism and  Christianity,  as  also  Juda- 
ism, are  responsible  for  the  evil  as  well  as 
the   good  they  have   accomphshed   in   the 
world.     They  are  responsible  for  the  lives 
they  have  destroyed,  as  for  the  lives  they 
have  saved.     They  are  responsible  for  the 
passions  they  have  aroused,-f  or  the  hatred 
the  persecutions  and  the  rehgious  wars  ol 
the  centuries,  as  for  the  piety  and  chanty 
they  have  encouraged.  , 

The  central  idea  in  all  the  three  rehgions 
mentioned  above,  is  that  God  has  revealed 
his  will  to  man.  There  is,  we  say  frankly, 
the  root  of  aU  the  evil  which  rehgion  has 
inflicted  upon  our  unfortunate  earth,     ihe 


182  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

poison  is  in  both  the  flower  and  the  fruit 
which  that  idea  brings  forth.  If  it  be  true 
that  God  has  revealed  his  will,  that  he  has 
told  us,  for  instance,  to  believe  in  the  Trin- 
ity, the  atonement,  the  fall  of  man,  and  the 
dogma  of  eternal  punishment,  and  we  re- 
fuse to  do  so,  will  we  not,  then,  be  regarded 
as  the  most  odious,  the  most  heinous,  the 
most  rebellious,  the  most  sacrilegious,  the 
most  stiff-necked,  the  most  criminal  people 
in  the  world?  Think  of  refusing  to  believe 
as  God  has  dictated  to  usl  Think  of  say- 
ing no!  to  one's  Creator  and  Father  in 
Heaven !  Think  of  the  consequences  of  dif- 
fering with  God,  and  tempting  others  to 
do  the  samel  Is  it  at  all  strange  that  dur- 
ing the  early  centuries  of  Christianity,  the 
people  who  hesitated  to  agree  with  the  deity, 
or  to  believe  as  he  wanted  them  to,  were 
looked  upon  as  incarnate  fiends,  as  the  ac- 
complices of  the  devil  and  the  enemies  of 
the  human  race,  and  were  treated  accord- 
ingly? 

The  doctrine  of  salvation  by  faith  makes 
persecution  inevitable.  If  to  refuse  to  be- 
lieve in  the  Trinity,  or  in  the  divinity  of 
Christ,  is  a  crime  against  God  and  will  be 
punished  by  an  eternity  of  hell  in  the  next 


Is  the  World  Indebted  to  Christianity?  183 

world,  and  if  such  a  man  endangers  the 
eternal  salvation  of  his  fellows,  is  it  not  the 
duty  of  all  religious  people  to  endeavor  to 
exterminate  him  and  his  race,  now  and 
here?  How  can  Christian  people  tolerate 
the  rebel  against  their  God,  when  God  hnn- 
self  has  pronounced  sentence  of  death 
against  him?  Why  not  follow  the  example 
of  the  deity,  as  set  forth  in  the  persecutions 
of  the  Old  Testament? 

When  we  have  a  God  for  a  teacher,  the 
highest  and  surest  virtue  is  unconditional 
acquiescence.  Judaism,  Mohammedanism 
and  Christianity,  in  giving  us  a  God  for  a 
teacher,  have  taken  away  from  us  the  liberty 
to  think  for  ourselves.  Each  one  of  these 
three  religions  makes  unconditional  obedi- 
ence the  price  of  the  salvation  it  offers,  but 
do  you  know  what  other  word  in  the  Eng- 
lish langauge  unconditional  obedience  is  a 
synonym  of? — Silence!  A  dumb  world,  a 
tongue-tied  humanity  alone  can  be  saved  I 
The  good  man  is  the  man  on  his  knees  with 
his  mouth  in  the  dust.  But  silence  is  steril- 
ity I  Silence  is  slavery  I  Think,  then,  of 
the  character  of  a  religion  which  makes  free 
speech,  free  thought,  a  crime — which  hurls 
hell  against  the  Protestant! 


184  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

There  is  a  third  question  to  be  answered: 
It  is  true,  they  say  to  us,  that  there  are  many 
things  in  the  Koran,  the  Old  Testament 
and  the  New,  which  are  really  injurious, 
and  which  ought  to  be  discarded,  but  there 
are  also  many  beautiful  principles,  noble 
sentiments  and  high  educational  maxims  in 
these  scriptures.  Why  not,  then,  dwell 
upon  these,  and  pass  in  silence  over  the  ob- 
jectionable teachings  of  these  religions? 

It  is  not  necessary  to  repeat  again  that  in 
all  so-called  sacred  scriptures,  there  are  glo- 
rious truths.  It  could  not  have  been  other- 
wise. All  literature,  whether  secular  or  re- 
ligious, is  the  voice  of  man  and  sweeps  the 
whole  compass  of  human  love  and  hope. 
We  have  no  objection  to  quoting  from  the 
Veddas,  the  Avestas,  the  Koran  or  the 
Bible;  nor  do  we  hesitate  to  admire  and  en- 
joy and  praise  generously  the  ravishingly 
beautiful  utterances  of  the  poets  and  pro- 
phets of  all  times  and  climes.  Neverthe- 
less, it  remains  true  that  the  modern  world 
finds  more  practical  help  and  inspiration  in 
secular  authors,  in  the  books  of  science  and 
philosophy,  than  in  these  so-called  inspired 
scriptures.  Jesus,  who  is  popularly  be- 
lieved to  have  preached  the  Sermon  on  the 


Is  the  World  Indebted  to  Christianity?  185 

Mount,  has  said  little  or  nothing  which  can 
help  the  modern  world  as  much  as  the  scien- 
tific revelations  of  a  student  like  Darwin, 
or  of  a  philosopher  like  Herbert  Spencer, 
or  of  a  poet  like  Goethe  or  Shakespeare. 
We  know  this  wiU  sound  like  blasphemy 
to  the  believer,  but  a  moment's  honest  and 
fearless  reflection  wiU  convince  everyone  of 
the  fact  that  neither  Mohammed  nor  Jesus 
had  in  view  modern  conditions  when  they 
delivered  their  sermons.  Jesus  could  have 
had  no  idea  of  a  world  outside  of  his  little 
Palestine.  The  thought  of  the  many  races 
of  the  world  mingling  together  in  one  coun- 
try could  never  have  occurred  to  him.  His 
vision  did  not  embrace  the  vista  of  two 
thousand  years,  nor  did  his  mind  rise  to  the 
level  of  the  problems  which  today  tax  the 
brain  and  heart  of  man.  Jesus  believed 
implicitly  that  the  world  would  speedily 
come  to  an  end,  that  the  sun  and  the  moon 
would  soon  fall  from  the  face  of  the  sky, 
and  that  people  living  then  in  Palestine 
would  not  taste  of  death  before  they  saw 
"the  Son  of  Man  return  upon  the  clouds." 
Jesus  had  no  idea  of  a  progressive  evolu- 
tion of  humanity.  It  was  beyond  him  to 
conceive   the  consoHdation   of  the  nations 


186  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

into  one  fellowship,  the  new  resources  which 
science  would  tap,  or  the  new  energies 
which  human  industry  would  challenge. 
Jesus  was  in  peaceful  ignorance  of  the  so- 
cial and  international  problems  which  con- 
front the  world  of  today.  The  Sermon  on 
the  Mount,  then,  which  is  said  to  be  the 
best  in  our  gospels,  can  be  of  little  help 
to  us,  for  it  could  not  have  been  meant  for 
us.  And  it  is  very  easy  to  show  that  the 
modern  world  ignores,  not  out  of  disrespect 
to  Jesus,  but  by  the  force  of  circumstances 
and  the  evolution  of  society,  the  principles 
contained  in  that  renowned  sermon. 

I  was  waiting  for  transportation  at  the 
corner  of  one  of  the  principal  streets  of 
Chicago,  the  other  day,  when,  looking  about 
me,  I  saw  the  tremendous  buildings  which 
commerce  and  wealth  have  reared  in  our 
midst.  On  one  hand  was  a  savings  bank, 
on  the  other  a  colossal  national  bank,  and 
up  and  down  the  street  a  thousand  equally 
soUd  and  substantial  buildings,  devoted  to 
the  interests  of  commerce  and  civilization. 
To  bring  out  and  emphasize  the  wide  breach 
between  the  man  who  j)reached  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount,  and  progressive  and  aggres- 
sive, busy  and  wealthy,  modern  Chicago,  I 


Is  the  World  Indebted  to  Christianity?  187 

took  the  words  of  Jesus  and  mentally  in- 
scribed them  upon  the  walls  of  these  build- 
ings. Upon  the  savings  bank — and  a  savings 
bank  represents  economy,  frugality,  self- 
sacrifice,  self-restraint, — the  desire  of  the 
people  to  provide  for  the  uncertainties  of 
the  future,  to  lay  by  something  for  the  edu- 
cation of  their  children,  for  the  maintenance 
of  their  families  when  they  themselves  have 
ceased  to  five, — I  printed  upon  the  facade 
of  this  institution,  figuratively  speaking, 
these  words  of  the  Oriental  Jesus: 

"Take  no  thought  of  the  morrow,  for  the 
morrow  will  take  care  of  itself." 

And  upon  the  imposing  front  of  the  na- 
tional bank,  I  ^vrote:  "Lay  not  up  for 
yourselves  treasures  on  earth."  If  we  fol- 
lowed these  teachings,  would  not  our  indus- 
trial and  social  life  sink  at  once  to  the  level 
of  the  stagnating  Asiatics? 

Pursuing  this  comparison  between  Jesus 
and  modern  life,  I  inscribed  upon  the  hand- 
some churches  whose  pews  bring  enormous 
incomes,  and  on  the  palatial  residences  of 
Bishops,  with  salaries  of  from  twenty-five 
to  a  hundred  thousand  dollars,  these  words: 

"How  hardly  shall  a  rich  man  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  Heaven,"  and,  "It  is  easier 


188  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

for  a  camel  to  go  through  the  eye  of  a 
needle  than  for  a  rich  man  to  enter  the  king- 
dom of  Heaven." 

In  plain  words,  the  gospel  condemns 
wealth,  and  cries,  "Woe  unto  you  rich,"  and 
"Sell  all  thou  hast  and  give  it  to  the  poor," 
which,  by  the  way,  would  only  be  shifting 
the  temptation  of  wealth  from  one  class  to 
another.  Buckle  was  nearer  the  truth,  and 
more  modern  in  spirit,  when  he  ascribed  the 
progress  of  man  to  the  pursuit  of  truth  and 
the  acquisition  of  wealth. 

But  let  us  apply  the  teachings  of  Jesus 
to  still  other  phases  of  modern  life.  Some 
years  ago  our  Cuban  neighbors  appealed  to 
the  United  States  for  protection  against  the 
cruelty  and  tyranny  of  Spanish  rule.  We 
sent  soldiers  over  to  aid  the  oppressed  and 
down-trodden  people  in  the  Island.  Now, 
suppose,  instead  of  sending  iron-clads  and 
admirals, — Schley,  Sampson  and  Dewey, — 
we  had  advised  the  Cubans  to  "resist  not 
evil,"  and  to  "submit  to  the  powers  that  be," 
or  suppose  the  General  of  our  army,  or  the 
Secretary  of  our  navy,  had  counseled  seri- 
ously our  soldiers  to  remember  the  words 
of  Jesus  when  fighting  the  Spaniards :  "If 
a  man  smite. thee  on  one  cheek,"  etc. 


Is  the  World  Indebted  to  Christianity?  189 

Write  upon  our  halls  of  justice  and  court- 
houses and  statute  books,  and  on  every  law- 
yer's desk,  these  solemn  words  of  Jesus: 
"He  that  taketh  away  thy  coat,  let  him 
have  thy  cloak  also." 

Introduce  into  our  Constitution,  the  pride 
and  bulwark  of  our  liberties,  guaranteeing 
religious  freedom  unto  all, — these  words  of 
Paul:  "If  any  man  preach  any  other  gos- 
pel than  that  which  I  have  preached  unto 
you,  let  him  be  accursed."  Think  of  plac- 
ing nearly  fifty  millions  of  our  American 
population  under  a  curse! 

Tell  this  to  the  workers  in  organized 
charities:  "Give  to  every  man  that  asketh 
of  thee,"  which,  if  followed,  would  make  a 
science  of  charity  impossible. 

To  the  workingmen,  or  the  oppressed 
seeking  redress  and  protesting  against  evil, 
tell  this:  "Blessed  are  they  that  are  perse- 
cuted," which  is  equivalent  to  encouraging 
them  to  submit  to,  rather  than  to  resist,  op- 
pression. 

Or  upon  our  colleges  and  universities,  our 
libraries  and  laboratories  consecrated  to  sci- 
ence, write  the  words:  "The  wisdom  of  this 
world  is  fooHshness  with  God,"  and  "God 
has  chosen  the  foolish  to  confound  the  wise." 


190  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

Ah,  yes,  the  foolish  of  Asia,  it  is  true,  suc- 
ceeded in  confounding  the  philosophers  of 
Europe.  Abraham,  Isaac,  Jacob,  Moses, 
Jesus,  did  replace  Socrates,  Plato,  Aristotle, 
Seneca,  Cicero,  Caesar  and  the  AntoninesI 
But  it  was  a  trance,  a  spell,  a  delirium  only, 
and  it  did  not  last, — it  could  not  last.  The 
charm  is  at  last  broken.  Europe  is  forever 
free  from  the  exorcism  of  Asia. 

I  believe  the  health  and  sanity  and  virtue 
of  our  Europe  would  increase  a  hundred 
fold,  if  we  could,  from  this  day  forth,  cease 
to  pretend  professing  by  word  of  mouth 
what  in  our  own  hearts  and  lives  we  have 
completely  outgrown.  If  we  could  be  sin- 
cere and  brave;  if  our  leaders  and  teachers 
would  only  be  honest  with  themselves  and 
honest  with  the  modern  world,  there  would, 
indeed,  be  a  new  earth  and  a  new  humanity. 

But  the  past  is  past.  It  is  for  us  to  sow 
the  seeds  which  in  the  day  of  their  fruition 
shall  emancipate  humanity  from  the  press- 
ing yoke  of  a  stubborn  Asiatic  superstition, 
and  push  the  future  even  beyond  the  beauty 
and  liberty  of  the  old  Pagan  world ! 


Figures  on  a  Phenician  Vase, 

Showing  the  Use  of  the  Cross,  Evidently  in  Some 

Ceremony  of  a  Religious  Nature. 

CHRISTIANITY  AND  PAGANISM 

Christianity  as  an  Asiatic  cult  is  not  suit- 
able to   European  races.     To   prove  this, 
let    us    make    a    careful    comparison    be- 
tween Paganism  and  Christianity.     There 
are   many    foolish   things,    and   many   ex- 
cellent   things,    in    both    the    Pagan    and 
the  Christian  religions.     We  are  not  con- 
cerned   with   particular   beliefs    and   rites; 
it  is  Paganism  as  a  philosophy  of  life,  and 
Christianity  as  a  philosophy  of  life,  that 
we  desire  to  investigate.    And  at  the  thres- 
hold of  our  investigation  we  must  bear  in 
mind  that  Paganism  was  born  and  grew 
into  maturity  in  Europe,  while  Asia  was 
the  cradle  of   Christianity.     It  would  be 
superfluous  to  undertake  to  prove  that  in 
politics,  in  government,  in  literature,  in  art, 
in  science,  in  the  general  culture  of  the  peo- 
ple, Europe  was  always  in  advance  of  Asia. 

191 


192  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

Do  we  know  of  any  good  reason,  when  it 
comes  to  religion,  why  Asia  should  be  in- 
comparably superior  to  anything  Europe 
has  produced  in  that  line?  Unless  we  be- 
lieve in  miracles,  the  natural  inference  would 
be  that  a  people  who  were  better  educated 
in  every  way  than  the  Asiatics  should  have 
also  possessed  the  better  religion.  I  admit 
that  this  is  only  inferential,  or  a  'priori  rea- 
soning, and  that  it  still  remains  to  be  shown 
by  the  recital  of  facts,  that  Europe  not 
only  ought  to  have  produced  a  better  reli- 
gion than  Asia,  but  that  she  did. 

In  my  opinion,  between  the  Pagan  and 
Christian  view  of  life  there  is  the  same  dif- 
ference that  there  is  between  a  European 
and  an  Asiatic.  What  makes  a  Roman  a 
Roman,  a  Greek  a  Greek,  and  a  Persian  a 
Persian?  That  is  a  very  interesting,  but  also 
a  very  difficult  question.  Why  are  not  all 
nations  alike?  Why  is  the  oak  more  robust 
than  the  spruce?  What  are  the  subtle  in- 
fluences which  operate  in  the  womb  of  na- 
ture, where  "the  embryos  of  races  are  nour- 
ished into  form  and  individuality?"  I  can- 
not answer  that  question  satisfactorily,  and 
I  am  not  going  to  attempt  to  answer  it  at 
all.    We  know  there  is  a  radical  difference 


Christianity  and  Paganism        193 


between  the  European  and  the  Asiatic;  we 
know  that  Oriental  and  Occidental  culture 
are  the  antitheses  of  each  other,  and  nowhere 
else  is  this  seen  more  clearly  than  in  their 
interpretations  of  the  universe,  that  is  to 
say,  in  their  religions. 

In  order  to  understand  the  Oriental  races, 
we  must  discover  the  standpoint  from  which 
they  take  their  observations. 

But  first,  it  is  admitted,  of  course,  that 
there  are  Europeans  who  are  more  Asiatic 
in  their  habits  of  life  and  thought  than  the 
Asiatics  themselves,  and,  conversely,  there 
are  Asiatics  who  in  spirit,  energy  and  pro- 
gressiveness  are  abreast  of  the  most  ad- 
vanced representatives  of  European  cul- 
ture. 

Nor  has  Asia  been  altogether  barren;  she 
has  blossomed  in  many  spots,  and  she 
nursed  the  flame  of  civihzation  at  a  time 
when  Europe  was  not  yet  even  cradled. 

To  show  the  intellectual  point  of  view 
of  the  Asiatic,  let  me  quote  a  pas- 
sage from  the  Book  of  Job,  which  certainly 
is  an  Oriental  composition,  and  one  of  the 
finest : 

"How,  then,  can  man  be  justified  with 
God,  or  how  can  he  be  clean  that  is  born 


194  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

of  a  woman?    Man  that  is  a  worm,  and  the 
son  of  man,  which  is  a  worm" 

This,  then,  is  the  standpoint  of  the  Ori- 
ental. He  beheves  he  is  a  poor  httle  worm. 
His  philosophy  must  necessarily  trail  in 
the  dust.  A  worm  cannot  have  the  thoughts 
of  an  eagle;  a  worm  cannot  have  the  imag- 
ination of  a  Titan;  a  worm  sees  the  world 
only  as  a  worm  may.  This  is  the  angle  of 
vision  of  the  Asiatic.  He  calls  himself  a 
worm,  and  naturally  his  view  of  life  shrinks 
to  the  limits  of  his  standj)oint.  To  be  per- 
fectly fair,  however,  we  must  admit  there 
are  passages  in  all  the  bibles  of  the  Orient 
which  are  as  daring  as  those  found  in  any 
European  book,  but  they  represent  only  the 
strayings  of  the  Oriental  mind,  not  its  nor- 
mal pulse.  The  habitual  accent  of  the  Ori- 
ental is  that  man,  calling  a  woman  his 
mother,  is  a  worm.  In  the  Psalms  of  David, 
or  whoever  wrote  the  book,  we  read  these 
words:  "I  am  a  worm,  and  not  a  man/' 
What  did  the  Oriental  see  in  the  worm, 
which  induced  him  to  select  it  out  of  all 
things  as  the  original,  so  to  speak,  of  man? 
The  worm  crawls  and  creeps  and  writhes. 
Nothing  is  so  distressing  as  to  see  its  help- 
less wiggling — and  its  home  is  in  the  dust; 


Christianity  and  Paganism         195 

dirt  is  its  daily  food.  Moreover,  it  is  in 
danger  of  being  stamped  or  trampled  into 
annihilation  at  any  instant.  A  worm  rep- 
resents the  minimum  of  worth, — the  dregs 
in  the  cup  of  existence;  it  is  the  scum  or 
the  froth  of  life,  which  one  may  blow  into 
the  air.  It  is  impossible  to  descend  lower 
than  this  in  self-abasement. 

When  the  Oriental,  therefore,  says  that 
man  is  a  worm  or  "I  am  a  worm,"  he  is  just 
as  much  obeying  the  cumulative  pressure  of 
his  Asiatic  ancestry,  and  voicing  the  in- 
herited submission  of  the  Oriental  mind,  as 
Prometheus,  with  the  vulture  at  his  breast, 
and  shaking  his  hand  in  the  face  of  the 
gods,  expresses  the  revolt  of  the  European 
mind.  The  normal  state  for  the  Asiatic  is 
submission;  for  the  European  it  is  inde- 
pendence. Slavery  has  a  fascination  for 
the  children  of  the  east.  The  air  of  inde- 
pendence is  too  sharp  for  them.  They  crave 
a  master,  a  Sultan  or  a  Czar,  who  shall  own 
them  body  and  soul.  Through  long  prac- 
tice, they  have  acquired  the  art  of  servility 
and  flattery,  of  salaams  and  prostrations— - 
an  art  in  which  they  have  become  so  effi- 
cient that  it  would  be  to  them  like  throwing 
away  so  much  capital  to  abandon  its  prac- 


196  The  Truth  'About  Jesus 

tice.  They  expect  to  go  to  Heaven  on 
their  knees.  This  is  not  said  to  hurt  the 
feelings  of  the  races  of  the  Orient.  We  are 
explaining  the  influence  of  absolutism  upon 
the  products  and  tendencies  of  the  human 
mind.  The  religion  of  the  Orient,  then, 
notwithstanding  its  many  beautiful  fea- 
tures like  its  politics,  is  a  product  of  the 
suppressed  mind,  which  finds  in  the  creep- 
ing worm  of  the  dust  the  measure  of  its 
own  worth.  How  different  is  the  European 
from  the  Asiatic  in  this  respect!  The  latter 
crawls  upon  the  stage  of  this  magnificent 
universe  with  the  timidity,  hesitancy  and 
tremblings  of  a  worm.  True  to  his  bring- 
ing up,  he  falls  prostrate,  overwhelmed  by 
the  marvelous  immensities  opening  before 
him  and  the  abysses  yawning  at  his  feet. 
He  contracts  and  dwindles  in  size,  implor- 
ing with  outstretched  hands  to  be  spared 
because  he  is  a  poor  worm.  It  is  a  part  of 
his  religion  or  philosophy  that  if  he  admits 
he  is  nothing  but  a  worm,  the  dread  powers 
will  not  consider  him  a  rival  or  a  rebel,  but 
will  look  upon  him  as  a  confirmed  subject, 
and  permit  him  to  live.  This  is  his  art,  the 
strategy  by  which  he  hopes  to  secure  his 
salvation. 


Christianity  and  Paganism        197 

There  has  never  been  a  republic  in  Asia, 
which  is  another  way  of  saying  that  the  Asi- 
atic mind  has  never  asserted  its  independ- 
ence. Hence  its  thought  smacks  of  slavery. 
In  pohtics,  as  in  religion,  the  Asiatic  has 
always  been  passive.  He  has  never  been  an 
actor,  but  only  a  spectator.  It  is  his  to  nod 
the  head,  fold  the  arms  and  bend  the  knee. 
On  earth  he  must  have  a  king  and  a  pope, 
and  in  heaven  an  Allah  or  a  Jehovah.  He 
has  not  been  created  for  himself,  but  for  the 
glory  of  his  earthly  and  heavenly  Lords. 
This  radical  diiference  between  European 
self -appreciation  and  Asiatic  self-deprecia- 
tion furnishes  the  key  to  the  problem  under 
discussion. 

Paganism  is  the  religion  of  a  self-govern- 
ing race.  Buddhism,  Judaism,  Mohammed- 
anism, and  Christianity  are  religions  born  on 
a  soil  where  man  is  owned  by  another.  It 
will  be  impossible  to  imagine  Marcus  Aurel- 
ius,  for  instance,  crawling  upon  his  knees 
before  any  being,  or  calling  himself  a  worm. 
One  must  have  in  his  blood  the  taint  of  a 
thousand  years  of  slavery,  before  he  can 
stoop  so  low.  ]\Iarcus  Aurelius  was  a 
gentleman.  The  European  conception  of  a 
gentleman    implies    self-respect    and    inde- 


198  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

pendence;  the  Oriental  conception  of  a 
gentleman  implies  self-abasement  and  ac- 
quiescence. The  Oriental  gentleman  is  a 
man  who  serves  his  king  as  though  he  were 
his  slave. 

But  observe  now  how  the  Oriental  pro- 
ceeds to  pull  down  his  mind  to  the  level  of 
his  body,  which  he  has  likened  to  a  worm. 
When  I  was  still  a  Presbyterian  minister, 
I  was  invited  to  address  a  Sunday-school 
camp-meeting  at  Asbury  Park  in  New  Jer- 
sey. There  were  other  speakers  besides  my- 
self;  one  of  them,  known  as  a  Sunday- 
school  leader,  had  brought  with  him  a  chart 
of  the  human  heart,  which,  when  he  arose 
to  address  the  children,  he  spread  on  a  black- 
board before  them:  *'This  is  a  picture  of 
your  heart  before  you  have  accepted  Jesus. 
What  do  you  think  of  it?"  he  asked  the 
school.  "It  is  all  black,"  was  the  answer; 
and  it  was.  He  had  drawn  a  totally  black 
picture  to  represent  the  heart  of  the  child 
before  conversion. 

In  all  the  literature  of  Pagandom,  there 
is  not  the  least  intimation  of  so  fearful  an 
idea  as  the  total  depravity  of  human  nature. 
The  Pagans  never  thought,  spoke,  or  heard 
of  such  a  thing.     It  was  inconceivable  to 


Christianity  and  Paganism        199 

them;  they  would  have  recoiled  from  it  as 
from  a  species  of  barbarism.  How  radically 
different,  then,  must  European  culture  have 
been  from  the  Asiatic.  There  is  a  gulf 
well-nigh  impassible  between  the  thought 
of  a  free-born  citizen  and  that  of  the  op- 
pressed and  enslaved  Oriental. 

But  let  us  continue.  Not  satisfied  with 
thinking  of  himself  as  a  worm,  and  of  his 
intellectual  and  moral  nature  as  totally  de- 
graded, the  Oriental  strikes  with  the  same 
paralyzing  stroke,  at  the  world  in  which  he 
lives,  until  it,  too,  withers  and  becomes  an 
ugly  and  heinous  thing.  He  calls  the  world 
a  "vale  of  tears,"  ruled  by  the  powers  of 
darkness,  and  groaning  under  a  primeval 
curse.  "The  world,  the  flesh  and  the  devil" 
become  a  trio  of  iniquity  and  sin.  Some  of 
you  in  your  earlier  days  must  have  sung 
that  Methodist  hymn  which  represents  the 
world  as  a  snare  and  a  delusion: 
"The  world  is  a  fleeting  show 
For  man's  illusion  given." 

Given !  Think  of  believing  that  the  world 
has  been  purposely  given  us  to  lead  us  astray. 
The  thought  staggers  the  mind.  It  sug- 
gests a  terrible  conspiracy  against  man.  For 
his  ruin,   sun,  moon  and  stars  co-operate 


200  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

with  the  devil.  Help!  we  cry,  as  we  realize 
our  inability  to  cope  with  the  tremendous 
powers  hurling  themselves  against  us  like 
billows  of  the  raging  sea,  and  taking  our 
breath  away.  It  suggests  that  we  are  placed 
in  a  world  which  has  been  made  purposely 
beautiful,  in  order  to  tempt  us  into  sin. 
Think  of  such  a  behef !  It  is  that  of  a  slave. 
It  is  Asiatic;  it  is  not  European.  Neither 
you  nor  I,  in  all  our  readings,  have  ever 
come  across  any  such  attitude  toward  nature 
in  Pagan  literature.  The  Greeks  and  the 
Romans  loved  nature  and  made  lovely  gods 
out  of  every  running  brook,  caressing 
zephyr,  dancing  wave,  glistening  dew,  sail- 
ing cloud,  beaming  star,  beautiful  woman, 
or  brave  man.  The  Oriental  suspects  na- 
ture and  regards  her  smiles — the  shining  of 
the  sun,  the  perfume  of  the  meadows,  the 
swell  of  the  sea,  the  fluttering  of  the 
branches  tipped  with  blossoms,  the  emerald 
grass,  the  sapphire  sky — looks  upon  all 
these  as  the  seductive  advances  of  a  pros- 
titute in  whose  embrace  lurks  death! 

But,  once  more;  not  satisfied  with  drag- 
ging the  world  down  to  the  plane  of  his  to- 
tally depraved  nature,  and  that  again  to  the 
level  of  the  worm,  the  Asiatic  projects  his 


Christianity  and  Paganism        201 

fatal  thought  into  the  next  world  and,  cros- 
sing the  grave,  that  silent  and  painless  home 
of  a  tired  race,  he  crowds  the  beyond  with  a 
thousand  thousand  pains  and  aches  and  hor- 
rors and  fires — with  sulphur  and  brimstone 
and  burning  hells.  His  frightened  imagina- 
tion invokes  dark  and  infernal  beings  without 
number,  fanning  with  their  dark  wings  the 
very  air  he  breathes.  This  is  too  revolting 
to  think  of.  Poor  slave !  Inured  to  suffer- 
ing,— to  the  lash,  to  oppression's  crushing 
heel, — he  dare  not  dream  of  a  painless  fu- 
ture, of  a  quiet,  peaceful  sleep  at  life's  end, 
nor  has  he  the  divine  audacity  to  invent  a 
new  world  wherein  the  misery  and  slavery 
of  his  present  existence  will  be  impossible, 
— where  all  his  tyrants  will  be  dead,  where 
he  shall  taste  of  sweet  freedom  and  become 
himself  a  god.  In  his  timidity  and  shrink- 
ing submission,  with  the  spring  of  his  heart 
broken,  his  spirit  crushed,  all  independence 
strangled  in  his  soul, — he  puts  in  the  big- 
gest corner  of  his  heaven  even, — a  hell! 
Nor  does  he  pause  there,  but,  stinging 
his  slave  imagination  once  more,  he  declares 
that  this  future  of  torture  and  hell-fire  is 
everlasting.  He  cannot  improve  upon  that. 
Deeper  in  degradation  he  cannot  descend. 


202  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

That  is  the  darkest  thought  he  can  have, 
and,  strange  to  say,  he  hugs  it  to  his  bosom 
as  a  mother  would  her  child.  The  doctrine 
of  hell  is  the  thought  of  a  slave  and  of  a 
coward.  No  free-born  man,  no  brave  soul 
could  ever  have  invented  so  abhorrent  an 
idea.  Only  under  a  regime  of  absolutism, 
only  under  an  Oriental  Sultan  whose  cap- 
rice is  law,  whose  vengeance  is  terrible, whose 
favors  are  fickle,  whose  power  is  crushing, 
whose  greed  is  insatiable,  whose  torture  in- 
struments are  without  number,  and  whose 
dark  dungeons  always  resound  with  the  rat- 
tling of  chains  and  the  groans  of  martyrs 
— only  under  such  a  regime  could  man  have 
invented  an  unending  hell. 

But  we  were  mistaken  when  we  said  that 
hell  was  the  darkest  that  the  Asiatic  was 
capable  of.  He  has  grafted  upon  the 
European  mind  a  belief  which  is  darker  still. 

Is  there  anything  more  precious  in  hu- 
man life  than  children?  The  sternest  heart 
melts,  the  fiercest  features  relax,  at  the  sight 
of  an  innocent,  sweet,  laughing,  frolicking 
babe  in  its  mother's  arms.  Look  at  its  glor- 
ious eyes,  so  full  of  surprises,  so  deep,  so 
appealing!  Look  at  the  soft  round  hands, 
the  little  feet,  the  exquisite  mouth,  opening 


Christianity  and  Paganism         203 

like  a  bud!  Hear  its  prattle,  which  is 
nothing  but  the  mind  beginning  to  stir! 
Watch  its  gestures,  the  first  language  of 
the  child!  See  it  with  its  tiny  arms  about 
its  mother's  neck.  Mark  its  joy  when  it  is 
kissed.  What  else  in  our  human  world  is 
more  beautiful,  more  divine?  And  yet,  and 
yet,  the  slave  creed  of  Asia  has  drawn  into 
its  burning  net  of  damnation  even  the 
cradle.  John  Burroughs  describes  how  in  a 
Catholic  cemetery  near  where  he  lives  he 
was  shown  a  neglected,  unkept  corner,  used 
for  the  burial  of  unbaptized  children.  Con- 
secrated ground  is  denied  to  them,  and  so 
their  poor  bodies  are  huddled  together  in 
this  profane  plot,  unblessed  and  unsaved. 
I  do  not  wish  to  live  in  a  world  where  such 
absurdities  are  not  only  countenanced,  but 
where  they  are  exalted  even  to  the  dignity 
of  a  religion! 

O  holy  children!  O  sweet  children!  hud- 
dled together  in  unconsecrated  ground,  and 
thus  exposed  to  the  cruelty  of  indescribable 
demons !  Can  you  hear  me  ?  I  am  a  man  of 
compassion.  I  can  forgive  the  murderer. 
I  can  pardon  and  pity  the  meanest  ^vretch 
and  take  him  into  my  arms,  but  I  confess 
that  even  if  I  had  a  heart  as  big  as  the 


204  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

ocean,  I  could  not,  I  would  not,  forgive  the 
creed  that  can  be  guilty  of  such  inhumanity 
against  you, — dear,  innocent  ones,  who  were 
born  to  breathe  but  for  a  moment  the  harsh 
air  of  this  world!  When  such  gloom  over- 
powers me  and  wrings  from  my  lips  such 
hard  words,  I  find  some  little  respite  in  con- 
templating the  old  Pagan  world  in  its  best 
days.  I  hasten  for  consolation  to  my  Pagan 
friends,  and  in  their  sanity  find  healing  for 
my  bruised  heart. 

In  one  of  his  letters,  the  Greek  Plutarch 
says  this  about  children,  which  I  want  you 
to  compare  with  what  St.  Augustine,  the 
representative  of  the  Asiatic  creed,  says  on 
the  same  subject.  "It  is  irreligious,"  writes 
Plutarch,  "to  lament  for  those  pure  souls 
(the  children)  who  have  passed  into  a  better 
life  and  a  happier  dwelling  place."*  Compare 
this  Pagan  tenderness  for  children  with  the 
Asiatic  doctrine  of  infant  damnation  but 
recently  thrown  out  of  the  Presbyterian 
creed.  Yet,  if  St.  Augustine  is  to  be  be- 
lieved, it  is  a  heresy  to  reject  the  damnation 
of  unbaptized  infants:  "Whosoever  shajl 
tell,"  writes  this  Father  of  the  church,  "that 
infants  shall  be  quickened  in   Christ  who 

*Plutarch    Ad    Uxorem.      Comp.    Lecky's    History    of    European 
Morals.     Vol.  I. 


Christianity  and  Paganism        205 

died  without  partaking  in  his  sacrament, 
does  both  contradict  the  apostles'  teaching 
and  condemn, the  whole  church."*  It  is  in- 
finitely more  religious  to  disagree  with  the 
apostles  and  the  church,  if  that  is  their  teach- 
ing. The  Pagan  view  of  children  is  the 
holier  view.  The  doctrine  of  the  damnation 
of  children  could  only  find  lodgment  in  the 
brain  of  a  slave  or  a  madman.  It  is  Asiatic 
and  altogether  foreign  to  the  culture  of 
Europe. 

All  that  we  have  advanced  thus  far  may 
be  summed  up  in  one  phrase:  Asia  in- 
vented the  idea  that  man  is  a  fallen  being. 
This  idea,  which  is  the  dors  espinal, — the 
backbone — of  Christianity,  never  for  once 
entered  the  mind  of  the  European.  We 
have  already  quoted  from  Job  and  the 
Psalms;  the  following  is  from  the  book  of 
Jeremiah:  "The  heart  is  deceitful  above  all 
things  and  desperately  wicked."  This  is 
one  of  the  texts  upon  which  the  doctrine  of 
the  fall  of  man  is  based.  We  repeat  that 
only  under  a  religion  of  slavery,  where  one 
slave  vies  with  another  to  abase  himself  be- 
fore his  lords  and  masters,  could  such  an 
idea  have  been  invented.     There  is  not  a 


*St.  Augustine  Epist.   166. 


206  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

man  in  all  our  sacred  scriptures  who  could 
stand  before  the  deity  erect  and  unabashed, 
or  who  could  speak  in  the  accents  of  a  Ci- 
cero who  said,  "We  boast  justly  of  our  owii 
virtue,  which  we  could  not  do  if  we  derived 
it  from  the  deity  and  not  from  ourselves," 
or  this  from  Epictetus,  "It  is  characteristic 
of  a  wise  man  that  he  looks  for  all  his  good 
and  evil  from  himself."  Such  independence 
was  foreign  to  a  race  that  believed  itself 
fallen. 

In  further  confirmation  of  our  positioa, 
it  may  be  said  that  the  models  which  the 
Pagans  set  up  for  emulation  were  men  like 
themselves,  only  nobler.  The  models  which 
the  Orientals  set  up  for  imitation,  on  the 
other  hand,  were  supernatural  beings,  or 
men  who  were  supposed  to  possess  superna- 
tural powers.  The  great  men  for  the  Ori- 
ental are  men  who  can  work  miracles,  who 
possess  magical  powers,  who  possess  secrets 
and  can  know  how  to  influence  the  deity,— 
Moses,  Joshua,  David,  Joseph,  Isaiah,  Jesus, 
Paul, — all  demi-divinities.  The  Pagans,  on 
the  other  hand,  selected  natural  men,  men 
like  themselves,  who  had  earned  the  admira- 
tion of  their  fellows.  Let  me  quote  to  you 
Plutarch's  eloquent  sentence  relative  to  this 


Christianity  and  Paganism        207 

subject:  "Whenever  we  begin  an  enterprise 
or  take  possession  of  a  charge,  or  experience 
a  calamity,  we  place  before  our  eyes  the  ex- 
amples of  the  greatest  men  of  our  own  or  of 
bygone   ages,   and   we   ask   ourselves   how 
Plato,  or  Epaminondas,  or  Lycurgus,  or 
Agesilaus,  would  have  acted.   Looking  into 
these  personages,  as  into  a  faithful  mirror, 
we  can  remedy  our  defects  in  word  or  deed/' 
The  Westminster  Catechism,  which  in  its 
essentials  is  a  resume  of  our  Asiatic  religion, 
emphasizes  the  doctrine  of  the  fall  of  man, 
of  which  the  Pagan  world  knew  nothmg, 
and  refused  to  believe  it  until  priests  suc- 
ceeded in  dominating  the  mind  of  Europe: 
"The    catechism    following    the    Scripture 
teaches  that  ...  we  are  not  only  a  disin- 
herited family,  but  we  are  personally  de- 
praved and  demoralized."*    Goodness  I  the 
Oriental   imagination,    abused   by   slavery, 
cannot  rid  itself  of  the  idea  of  being  disin- 
herited, turned  out  into  the  cold,  orphaned 
and  smitten  with  moral  sores  from  head  to 
foot.    To  the  Pagan,  such  a  description  of 
man  would  have  been  the  acme  of  absurdity. 
Again:  "It  (the  fall)  affirms  that  he  (man) 
is  all  wrong,  in  all  things  and  all  the  time."* 

•Weatminster  C»techiBm,   Comments. 


208  The  Truth  About  Jesus' 

If  this  was  comforting  news  to  the  Asiatic, 
the  Pagan  world  would  have  rejected  the 
idea  as  unworthy  of  men  in  their  senses. 
Once  more:  "All  mankind  by  their  fall  lost 
communion  with  God,  are  under  his  wrath 
and  curse,  and  so  made  liable  to  all  miseries 
in  this  life  and  to  the  pains  of  hell  for- 
ever."* And  this  is  the  Gospel  we  have  im- 
ported from  Asia! 

Is  it  not  pathetic?  Could  slavery  ever 
strike  a  deeper  bottom  than  that?  Standing 
before  his  owner,  the  Asiatic,  of  his  own 
choice,  hands  himself  over  to  be  degraded,  to 
be  placed  in  chains  and  delivered  up  to  the 
torments  of  hell  forever.  I  despair  of  man. 
I  would  cry  my  heart  out  if  I  permitted  my- 
self to  dwell  upon  the  folly  and  stupidity 
and  slavery  of  which  man  voluntarily  makes 
himself  the  victim.  Think  of  it!  A  man 
and  a  woman,  nobody  knows  where  or  when, 
are  supposed  to  have  tasted  of  the  fruit  of 
a  tree ;  the  Oriental  mind,  with  its  crouching 
imagination,  pounces  upon  this  flimsy,  fan- 
ciful tale  with  the  appetite  of  a  carrion  crow, 
and  exalts  it  to  the  dignity  of  an  excuse  for 
the  eternal  damnation  of  a  whole  world. 
I  am  dazed!  I  can  say  no  more! 

*\Vestminster   Catechism,    Comments. 


Christianity  and  Paganism         209 

Let  us  recapitulate.  The  Oriental  dis- 
trust of  the  natural  man,  born  of  self-de- 
preciation, which  is  the  fruit  of  prolonged 
slavery,  developes  into  a  sort  of  mental  can- 
ker spreading  at  a  raging  pace  until  the 
whole  universe,  with  its  glorious  sun  and 
stars,  becomes  an  object  of  horror  and  loath- 
ing. Not  satisfied  with  thinking  of  himself 
as  a  worm,  of  his  intellectual  and  moral  na- 
ture as  totally  depraved,  he  communicates 
his  disease  to  the  world  in  which  he  lives 
until  it,  too,  shrinks  and  wastes  away.  Then 
the  disease,  finding  no  more  on  this  side  of 
the  grave  to  feed  upon,  leaps  over  the  grave 
and  converts  the  beyond,  the  virgin  worlds, 
into  an  inferno  with  which  to  satiate  its  fear. 
Indeed  frightful  are  the  thoughts  of  a  slave 
people ! 

Let  me  now,  in  conclusion,  call  your  atten- 
tion to  another  difference  betw^een  the  Occi- 
dental and  the  Oriental  mind.  When  the  body 
is  feeble  or  ill-nourished,  it  is  less  liable  to  re- 
sist disease;  likewise  when  the  mind  is 
alarmed,  cowed,  or  pinched  with  fear,  it  be- 
comes more  exposed  to  superstition.  Super- 
stition is  the  disease  of  the  mind.  It  will 
keep  away  from  robust  minds,  as  physical 
disease  from  a  body  in  health.     Now,  the 


210  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

Asiatic  mind,  scared  into  silence  and  sub- 
jection,— starved  to  a  mere  shadow  of  what 
it  should  be,  falls  an  easy  prey  to  all  the 
maladies  that  mind  is  heir  to.  The  Euro- 
pean mind,  on  the  other  hand,  with  room 
and  air  to  move  and  grow  in,  developes  a 
vitality  which  offers  resistance  to  all  attacks 
of  mental  disease.  That  explains  why  su- 
perstition thrives  with  ignorance  and  slav- 
ery, and  expires  when  science  and  liberty 
gain  the  ascendency.  Sanitary  precautions 
prevent  physical  disease;  knowledge  and 
liberty  constitute  the  therapeutics  of  the 
mind.  Why  is  the  Oriental  so  prone  or  par- 
tial to  miracle  and  mystery?  His  mind  is 
sick.  To  believe  is  easier  to  him  than  to 
reason.  He  follows  the  line  of  the  least  re- 
sistance: he  has  invented  faith  that  he  may 
not  have  to  think.  The  mental  cells  in  his 
brain  are  so  starved,  so  devitalized,  that  they 
have  to  be  whipped  into  movement.  Only 
the  bizarre,  the  monstrous,  the  supernatural, 
— demons,  ghosts,  dream  worlds,  miracles 
and  mysteries, — can  hold  his  attention.  Not 
science,  but  metaphysics,  barren  speculation, 
■ — is  the  product  of  the  Oriental  mind.  The 
philosopher  Bacon  describes  the  Asiatic 
when  he  speaks  of  men  who  "have  hitherto 


Christianity  and  Paganism         211 

dwelt  but  little,  or  rather  only  slightly 
touched  upon  experience,  whilst  they  have 
wasted  much  time  on  theories  and  fictions 
of  the  imagination." 

Again:  I  sometimes  think  that  if  it  be 
true  that  monotheism,  the  idea  of  one  God, 
was  first  discovered  in  Asia,  it  must  have 
been  suggested  to  them  by  the  regime  of 
Absolutism,  under  which  they  lived.  Un- 
like Asia,  democratic  Europe  believed  in  a 
republic  of  gods.  Polytheism  is  more  con- 
sonant with  the  republican  idea,  than  mono- 
theism. If  we  would  let  the  American  Pres- 
ident rule  the  land  without  the  aid  of  the 
two  houses  of  congress  or  his  cabinet  min- 
isters, his  power  would  be  infinitely  more 
than  it  is  now,  but  his  gain  would  be  the 
people's  loss.  His  increased  power  would 
only  represent  so  much  more  power  taken 
away  from  the  people.  One  God  means 
not  only  more  slaves,  but  more  abject,  more 
helpless  ones.  One  God  is  a  centralization 
which  reduces  man's  liberty  to  a  minimum. 
With  more  gods,  and  gods  at  times  dis- 
agreeing among  themselves,  and  all  bidding 
for  man's  support,  man  would  count  for 
more.  The  Greeks  could  not  tolerate  a  Je- 
hovah, or  an  Allah,  before  whom  the  Orien- 


212  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

tal  rabble  bent  the  knee.  "Allah  knows," 
exclaims  the  Moslem;  that  is  why  the  Mo- 
hammedans continue  in  ignorance.  "iVllah 
is  great,"  cries  again  the  Turk.  That  is 
why  he  himself  is  small.  The  more  powerful 
the  sovereign,  the  smaller  the  subject. 

Now  this  leads  us  to  a  final  reflection  upon 
the  difference  between  the  mind  brought  up 
under  restraint, — in  slavery, — and  the  mind 
of  the  free.  "The  Pagan,"  to  quote  Lecky, 
"believed  that  to  become  acceptable  to  the 
deity,  one  must  be  virtuous;"  the  Asiatic 
doctrine,  on  the  contrary,  taught  that  "the 
most  heroic  efforts  of  human  virtue  are  in- 
sufficient to  avert  a  sentence  of  eternal  con- 
demnation, unless  united  with  an  implicit 
belief"  in  the  dogmas  of  religion.  In  other 
words,  the  noblest  of  men  cannot  be  saved 
by  his  own  merits  of  character  alone,  for 
even  when  we  have  done  our  best,  we  are 
but  "unprofitable  slaves,"  quoting  a  Bible 
text.  Only  by  the  merits  of  Christ,  or  by 
the  grace  of  God,  can  any  man  be  saved. 
Have  you  ever  paused  to  think  of  the  pur- 
port of  this  piece  of  Orientalism?  It  wipes 
out  every  imaginable  claim  or  right  of  man. 
Even  when  he  is  just  and  great  and  good, 
he  has  no  rights,  he  is  as  vile  as  the  vilest. 


Christianity  and  Paganism         213 


Only  the  favor  of  the  king  can  save,— only 
the  grace  of  God,  who  can  save  the  thief  on 
the  cross  if  he  so  pleases.  Is  he  not  absolute  ? 
If  he  extends  his  scepter,  you  Uve;  if  he 
smiles  you  are  spared;  if  he  patronizes  you, 
you  are  fortunate.  He  says,  live!  you  live. 
He  says,  die !  you  die.  This  is  the  apotheosis 
of  despotism  exalted  into  a  revelation. 

What,  then,  is  our  creed,  but  the  thoughts 
of  an  eastern  slave  population,  cringing  be- 
fore the  throne  of  a  Sultan,  and  one  by  one 
signing  away  their  liberties?  "The  founda- 
tion of  all  real  grandeur  is  a  spirit  of  proud 
and  lofty  independence,"  says  Buckle;  but 
that  is  not  the  spirit  of  Asia,  or  of  its  reh- 
gion.  It  is,  and  we  ought  to  try  to  keep  it, 
the  spirit  of  the  Western  world. 

I  cannot  imagine  how  we  in  this  country, 
born  of  sturdy  parents,  born  of  the  free- 
dom-loving Pagans  of  Rome  and  Greece, 
born  of  men  who  shook  their  hands  in  the 
face  of  heaven,  and  pulled  the  gods  off  their 
thrones  when  they  violated  the  rights  of  man, 
— I  cannot  understand  how  we  have  thrown 
overboard  the  proud,  lofty  spirit  of  inde- 
pendence of  the  Pagans,— our  forefathers, 
and  taken  upon  our  necks  the  strangling 
yoke  of  the  slave-thought  of  Asia! 


Christ,  Half  Woman,  at  Baptism  in  Jordan. 
Cathedral  of  Chartres,  France. 


PART  III. 


SOME  MODERN  OPINIONS 
ABOUT  JESUS. 

Christianity  *' dwells  with  noxious  exag- 
geration about  the  person  of  Jesus.'* 

— Emerson. 

Christmas  is  the  season  in  the  year  when 
pulpit  and  press  dwell,  with  what  Emerson 
calls  "noxious  exaggeration,'*  about  the 
work  and  life,  as  well  as  the  person  of 
Jesus.  We  have,  lying  before  us,  the 
Christmas    sermon    of    so    progressive    a 

214 


Some   Modern   O-pinions   About  Jesus  215 

teacher  as  the  Rev.  Jenkin  Lloyd  Jones.* 
Here  is  his  text:  "And  the  Word  became 
flesh  and  dwelt  among  us,  and  we  beheld 
his  glory,  glory  as  of  the  only  begotten 
from  the  Father." — John  1:14.  How  our 
educated  neighbor  can  find  food  for  sober 
reflection  in  so  mystical  and  metaphysical 
an  effusion,  is  more  than  we  can  tell.  Who 
is  the  Word  that  became  flesh?  And  when 
did  the  event  take  place?  What  does  it 
mean  to  be  the  "only  begotten  from  the 
Father?"  We  know  what  it  means  in  the 
orthodox  sense,  but  what  does  it  mean  from 
the  Unitarian  standpoint  of  Mr.  Jones? 
But  the  text  faithfully  reflects  the  discourse 
which  follows.  It  is  replete  with  unlimited 
compliments  to  this  Word  which  became 
flesh  and  assumed  the  name  of  Jesus.  The 
following  is  a  fair  sample: 

"I  am  compelled  to  think  of  Jesus  of  Naza- 
reth as  an  epoch-making  soul,  an  era-forming 
spirit,  a  character  in  whom  the  light  of  an  illus- 
trious race  and  a  holy  ancestry  was  focalized, 
a  personality  from  which  radiated  that  subtle, 
creative  power  of  the  spirit  which  defies  all 
analysis,  which  baffles  definition,  which  over- 
flows all  words." 


♦Unitarian-Independent  preacher  of   All   Souls    Church,    Chicago. 


216  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

Goodness!  this  is  strong  rhetoric,  and  we 
regret  that  the  evidence  justifying  so 
sweeping  an  appreciation  has  been  withheld 
from  us.  Although  the  doctor  says  that 
Jesus  "defies  all  analysis,  baffles  definition 
and  overflows  all  words,"  he  nevertheless 
proceeds  to  devote  fifteen  pages  to  the  im- 
possible task.  "I  am  compelled  to  think 
of  him  as  one  who  won  the  right  of  pre- 
eminence in  the  world's  history,"  continues 
Mr.  Jones,  as  if  he  had  not  said  enough. 

That  is  a  definite  claim,  and  personally, 
we  would  be  glad  to  see  it  made  good.  But 
truth  compels  us  to  state  that  the  claim 
is  unjust.  Without  entering  into  the  ques- 
tion of  the  authenticity  of  the  gospels,  a 
question  which  we  have  discussed  at  some 
length  in  our  pamphlet  on  the  ^'Worship 
of  Jesus,"  we  beg  to  submit  that  there  is 
nothing  in  the  gospels, — the  only  records 
which  speak  of  him, — to  entitle  him  to  the 
"right  of  preeminence  in  the  world's  his- 
tory." No  one  knows  better  than  Mr.  Jones 
that  the  sayings  attributed  to  Jesus — the  fin- 
est of  them — are  to  be  found  in  the  writings 
of  Jewish  and  Pagan  teachers  antedating 
the  birth  of  Jesus  by  many  centuries. 

Was  it,  then,  for  his  "works,"  if  not  for 


Some  Modern   Opinions  About  Jesus  217 

his  * 'words,"  that  Jesus  "won  the  right  of 
preeminence  in  the  world's  history"?  What 
did  he  do  that  was  not  done  by  his  prede- 
cessors? Was  he  the  only  one  who  worked 
miracles?  Had  the  dead  never  been  raised 
before?  Had  the  blind,  and  the  lame,  and  the 
deaf,  remained  altogether  neglected  before 
Jesus  took  compassion  upon  them?  More- 
over, what  credit  is  there  in  opening  the 
eyes  of  the  blind  or  in  raising  the  dead  by 
miracle?  Did  it  cost  Jesus  any  effort  to 
perform  miracles?  Did  it  imply  a  sacrifice 
on  his  part  to  utilize  a  small  measure  of 
his  infinite  power  for  the  good  of  man? 
Who,  if  he  could  by  miracle  feed  the  hun- 
gry, clothe  the  naked  and  give  light  and 
sound  to  the  blind  and  deaf,  would  be 
selfish  enough  not  to  do  so?  If  Mr.  Jones 
does  not  believe  in  miracles,  then  Jesus  con- 
tributed even  less  than  many  a  doctor  con- 
tributes today  to  the  welfare  of  the  world. 
More  poor  and  diseased  people  are  visited 
and  medicined  gratuitously  by  a  modern  phy- 
sician in  one  month,  than  Jesus  cured  mirac- 
ulously in  the  two  or  three  years  of  his  career. 
Jesus,  if  he  was  *  'the  only  begotten  of  God," 
as  Mr.  Jones'  text  states,  was  not  in  any  dan- 
ger of  contracting  disease  himself,  which 


218  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

is  not  the  case  with  the  doctors  and  nurses 
who  extend  their  services  to  people  afflicted 
with  contagious  and  abhorrent  diseases. 
Moreover,  Jesus'  power  must  have  come  to 
him  divinely,  while  we  have  to  study,  labor, 
and  conquer  with  the  sweat  of  our  brow 
any  power  for  good  that  we  may  possess. 
If  Jesus  as  a  God  opened  the  eyes  of  the 
blind,  would  it  not  have  been  kinder  if  he 
had  prevented  blindness  altogether?  If 
Jesus  can  open  the  eyes  of  the  blind,  then, 
why  is  there  blindness  in  the  world?  How 
many  of  the  world's  multitude  of  sufferers 
did  Jesus  help?  Which  of  us,  if  he  had  the 
divine  power,  would  not  have  extended  it 
unto  every  suffering  child  of  man?  Of 
what  benefit  is  it  to  open  the  eyes  of  a  few 
blind  people,  two  thousand  years  ago,  in  one 
country,  when  he  could,  by  his  unique  di- 
vinity, have  done  so  much  more?  Mr.  Jones 
falls  into  the  orthodox  habit  of  not  apply- 
ing to  Jesus  the  same  canons  of  criticism 
by  which  human  beings  are  judged. 

But  perhaps  the  "preeminence  of  Jesus" 
lay  in  his  willingness  to  give  his  life  for  us. 
Noble  is  every  soul  who  prefers  truth  and 
duty  to  life.  But  was  Jesus  the  only  one, 
or  even  the  first  to  offer  himself  as  a  sacri- 


Some  Modern   Opinions   About  Jesus  219 

fice  upon  the  altar  of  humanity?  If  Jesus 
died  for  us,  how  many  thousands  have  died 
for  him — and  .  by  infinitely  more  cruel 
deaths?  It  is  easier  for  an  *'only  begotten" 
of  God,  himself  a  God — who  knows  death 
can  have  no  power  over  him — who  sees  a 
throne  prepared  for  him  in  heaven — who 
is  sure  of  rising  from  the  dead  on  the  third 
day — to  face  death,  than  for  an  ordinary 
mortal.  Yet  Jesus  showed  less  courage,  if 
his  reporters  are  reliable,  than  almost  any 
martyr  whose  name  shines  upon  memory's 
golden  page. 

The  European  churches  are  full  of  pic- 
tures showing  Jesus  suffering  indescribable 
agonies  as  the  critical  hour  draws  nigh.  We 
saw,  in  Paris,  a  painting  called  "The  Holy 
Face,"  La  Sainte  Face,  which  was,  truly, 
too  horrible  to  look  upon ;  big  tears  of  blood 
trickling  down  his  cheeks,  his  head  almost 
drooping  over  his  chest,  an  expression 
of  excruciating  pain  upon  his  features,  his 
eyes  fairly  imploring  for  help, — he  is  really 
breaking  down  under  the  weight  of  his 
cross.  Compare  this  picture  with  the  ser- 
enity of  Socrates  drinking  the  hemlock  in 
prison ! 

Nor  would  it  do  to  say  that  this  is  only 


220  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

the  Catholic  way  of  representing  Jesus  in 
his  passion.  The  picture  is  in  the  gospels, 
it  may  be  seen  in  the  Garden  of  Gethsemane 
and  on  the  cross  with  all  its  realism. 
Far  be  it  from  us  to  withhold  from  Jesus, 
if  he  really  suffered  as  the  gospels  report, 
one  iota  of  the  love  and  sympathy  he  de- 
serves, but  why  convert  the  whole  world 
into  a  black  canvas  upon  which  to  throw 
the  sole  figure  of  Jesus?  Which  of  us,  poor, 
weak,  sinful  though  we  are,  would  not  be 
glad  to  give  his  life,  if  thereby  he  could 
save  a  world?  Do  you  think  we  would 
mourn  and  groan  and  weep  tears  of  blood, 
or  collapse,  just  when  we  should  be  the 
bravest,  if  we  thought  that  by  our  death  we 
would  become  the  divine  Savior  of  all  man- 
kind? Would  we  stammer,  "Let  this  cup 
pass  from  me,  if  it  be  possible,"  or  tear  our 
hearts  with  a  cry  of  despair:  "My  God, 
my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me,"  if 
we  knew  that  the  eternal  welfare  of  the  hu- 
man race  depended  upon  our  death?  If  the 
Russian  or  Japanese  soldier  can  take  his 
home  and  wife  and  children, — his  hopes  and 
loves,  his  life, — his  all, — and  throw  them 
into  the  mouth  of  the  cannon,  dying  with  a 
shout  upon  his  lips, — who  would  hesitate  to 


Some   Modern   Opinions  About   Jesus  221 

do  the  same,  when  not  the  salvation  of  one 
country  alone,  but  of  the  whole  world,  de- 
pended upon  it?  There  are  examples  of 
heroism  in  the  annals  of  man  which  would 
bring  the  blush  to  the  cheeks  of  Jesus,  if  his 
biographers  have  not  abused  his  memory. 

Wherein,  then,  was  the  "preeminence'*  of 
Jesus?  Upon  what  grounds  does  Mr.  Jones 
claim,  with  "unlimited  rhetoric,"  to  use  his 
own  expression,  for  Jesus  "the  right  of 
preeminence  in  the  world's  history?" 

While  there  is  neither  a  commendable 
saying  nor  an  act  attributed  to  Jesus  in  our 
gospels  which  teachers  older  than  himself 
had  not  already  said  or  done,  there  are  some 
things  in  which  his  seniors  clearly  outshine 
him.  King  Asoka,  for  instance,  the  Bud- 
dhist sovereign  of  India,  250  years  before 
Jesus,  in  one  of  his  edicts  chiseled  on  the 
rocks  of  India,  declared  against  human 
slavery  and  offered  the  sweet  gift  of  liberty 
to  all  in  captivity.  Jesus  used  the  word 
slave  in  one  of  his  parables  (improperly 
translated  servant) ,  without  expressing  him- 
self on  the  subject,  except  to  intimate 
that  when  a  slave  does  all  his  duty  faith- 
fully, even  then  he  is  only  an  "unprofitable 
slave,"  unworthy  of  the  thanks  of  his  mas- 


222  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

ter.  There  was  slavery  of  the  worst  kind 
in  the  world  of  Jesus,  and  yet  he  never 
opened  his  mouth  to  denounce  the  awful 
curse.  It  is  claimed  that  Jesus'  doctrine  of 
love  was  indirectly  a  condemnation  of  slav- 
ery. Even  then,  inasmuch  as  other  and 
earlier  teachers  did  more  than  strike  only 
indirectly  at  the  ancient  evil, — for  they  not 
only  taught  the  brotherhood  of  man,  too, 
but  expressed  themselves,  besides,  positively 
on  the  subject  of  slavery, — they  have  a 
prior  claim  to  the  "right  of  preeminence" 
in  the  world's  history,  if  they  cared  any- 
thing about  ranks  and  titles. 

The  doctrine  of  humanity  to  animals,  our 
dumb  neighbors,  is  a  positive  tenet  in  Bud- 
dhism; is  it  in  Christianity? 

Two  and  a  half  centuries  before  Jesus, 
under  the  influence  of  Buddha's  teaching, 
King  Asoka  convened  a  religious  Parlia- 
ment, offering  to  each  and  every  represen- 
tative of  other  religions,  absolute  religious 
liberty.  Is  there  any  trace  of  such  toler- 
ance in  any  of  the  sayings  of  Jesus?  On 
the  contrary,  the  claim  of  Jesus  that  he 
is  the  light,  the  way,  the  truth,  and  that 
no  man  can  come  to  the  father  except 
through  him,  leaves  no  room  for  the  great- 


Some   Modern   Opinions  Aboiit  Jesus  223 

est  of  all  boons — liberty,  without  which 
every  promise  of  religion  is  only  a  mockery 
and  a  cheat.  Not  even  heaven  and  eternal 
life  can  be  accepted  as  a  consideration  for 
the  loss  of  liberty.  The  liberty  of  teaching 
is  alien  to  a  teacher  who  claims,  as  Jesus  did, 
that  he  alone  is  infallible,  and  that  all  who 
came  before  him  were  "thieves  and  robbers." 
Of  course,  Mr.  Jones  will  deny  that  Jesus 
ever  said  any  of  the  things  ascribed  to  him 
which  spoil  his  ideal  picture  of  him.  But 
he  finds  his  ideal  Jesus,  whose  personality 
"defies  analysis,  baffles  definition  and  over- 
flows all  words,"  in  the  gospels;  if  these  are 
not  reliable,  what  becomes  of  his  argument? 
If  the  writers  of  our  gospels  bear  false 
witness  against  Jesus  when  they  repre- 
sent him  as  "cursing  the  fig  tree,"  as  call- 
ing his  enemies  liars  and  devils,  as  calling 
the  Gentiles  dogs,  as  claiming  equality  with 
God,  as  menacing  with  damnation  all  who 
disagree  with  him, — what  security  have  we 
that  they  speak  truthfully  when  they  put 
the  beatitudes  in  his  mouth?  We  have  no 
more  reliable  authority  for  attributing  to 
Jesus  the  beatitudes  than  we  have  for  hold- 
ing him  responsible  for  the  curses  attributed 
to  him  in  the  gospels. 


224  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

To  return  to  our  comparison  between 
Jesus  and  his  illustrious  colleagues.  It  is 
with  cheerful  praise  and  generous  pleasure 
that  we  express  our  admiration  for  many 
of  the  sayings,  parables,  and  precepts  at- 
tributed to  Jesus.  The  fact  that  they  are 
much  older  than  Jesus,  more  universal  than 
Christianity,  only  enhances  their  value  and 
reflects  glory  upon  the  human  race,  a  glory 
of  which  Jesus,  too,  as  a  brother,  if  he  ever 
existed,  has  his  share.  We  love  and  admire 
every  teacher  who  has  a  message  for  human- 
ity; we  feel  our  indebtedness  to  them  and 
would  deem  ourselves  fortunate  if  we  could 
contribute  to  the  advancement  of  their  noble 
influence;  but  we  have  no  idols,  and  in  our 
pantheon,  truth  is  above  all.  We  have  no 
hesitation  to  sacrifice  even  Jesus  to  the 
Truth.  If  we  were  in  India,  and  some  Hin- 
doo preacher  spoke  of  Buddha,  as  Mr. 
Jones  does  of  Jesus,  as  a  "personality  de- 
fying all  analysis,  baffling  definition  and 
overflowing  all  words" — one  who  has  "won 
the  right  to  preeminence  in  the  world's  his- 
tory,"— we  would  protest  against  it,  in  the 
interest  of  Jesus  and  other  teachers,  as  we 
now  protest  against  Mr.  Jones*  Jesus,  in 
the  interest  of  truth.    We  have  a  suspicion. 


Some  Modern  Opinions  About  Jesus  225 

however,  that  if  Mr.  Jones,  or  preachers  of 
his  style,  were  Hindoos,  they  would  speak 
of  Buddha,  as  they  now,  being  Christians, 
speak  of  Jesus — echoing  in  both  instances 
the  'popular  opinion. 

The  best  way  to  illustrate  Mr.  Jones* 
style  of  reasoning  is  to  quote  a  few  ex- 
amples from  his  sermon: 

"The  story  of  the  Good  Samaritan  has  had  a 
power  beyond  the  story  of  the  senseless  blight- 
ing of  the  fig  tree ;  the  ages  have  loved  to  think 
of  Jesus  talking  with  the  woman  at  the  well 
more  than  they  have  loved  to  think  of  him  as 
manufacturing  wine  at  Cana.  No  man  is  so 
orthodox  but  that  he  reads  more  often  the  Ser- 
mon on  the  Mount  than  he  does  the  story  of 
the  drowning  of  the  pigs." 

But  if  he  did  not  "drown  the  pigs,'*  the 
reporter  who  says  he  did  might  have  also 
collected  from  ancient  sources  the  texts  in 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  and  put  them  in 
Jesus'  mouth. 

Again : 

"The  dauntless  crusaders  who  now  in  physical 
armament  and  again  in  the  more  invulnerable 
armament  of  the  spirit,  went  forth,  reckless  of 
danger,  regardless  of  cost,  to  rescue  the  world 
from  heathen  hands  or  to  gather  souls  into  the 
fold  of  Christ." 


226  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

We  can  hardly  believe  Mr.  Jones  speak- 
ing of  ''rescuing  the  world  from  heathen 
hands,'*  etc.  Who  were  the  heathen?  And 
think  of  countenancing  the  craze  of  the  cru- 
sades, which  cost  a  million  lives  to  possess 
the  empty  sepulchre  of  a  mythical  Savior! 
Is  it  one  of  the  merits  of  Christianity  that  it 
calls  other  people  "heathen,"  or  that  it  kills 
them  and  lays  waste  their  lands  for  an 
empty  grave.'* 

Once  more: 

"Jesus  had  tremendous  expectations.  .  .  . 
He  believed  mightily  in  the  future,  not  as  some 
glory-rimmed  heaven  after  death,  but  as  a  con- 
quering kingdom  of  love  and  justice.  Jesus 
took  large  stock  in  tomorrow;  he  laughed  at 
the  prudence  that  never  dares,  the  mock  right- 
eousness of  the  ledger  that  presumes  to  balance 
the  books  and  pay  all  accounts  up  to  date.  He 
knew  that  the  prudence  of  commerce,  the  thrift 
of  trade,  the  exclusive  pride  of  the  synagogue, 
must  be  broken  through  with  a  larger  hope  and 
a  diviner  enterprise.  He  believed  there  was  to 
be  a  day  after  today  and  recognized  his  obliga- 
tion to  it;  he  acknowledged  the  debt  which  can 
never  be  paid  to  the  past  and  which  is  paid 
only  by  enlarging  the  resources  of  the  future. 
Life,  to  Jesus,  was  an  open  account;  he  was  a 
forward  looker;  he  was  honest  enough  to  rec- 
ognize his  obligations  to  the  unborn.     Perhaps 


Some  Modern   Opinions  About  Jesus  227 

this  adventurous  spirit  in  the  realms  of  morals, 
even  more  than  his  heart  of  love,  has  made  him 
•      the  superlative  leader  of  men." 

We  sincerely  wish  all  this  were  true,  and 
would  be  glad  to  have  Mr.  Jones  furnish 
us  with  the  texts  or  evidences  which  have 
led  him  to  his  conclusions.  Would  not  his 
adjectives  be  equally  appropriate  in  de- 
scribing any  other  teacher  he  admires? 
"Jesus  had  tremendous  expectations."  Well, 
though  this  is  somewhat  vague  as  a  tribute 
to  Jesus,  we  presume  the  preacher  means 
that  Jesus  was  an  optimist.  The  reports, 
unfortunately,  flatly  contradict  Mr.  Jones. 
Jesus  was  a  *'man  of  sorrows."  He  expressly 
declared  that  this  earth  belonged  to  the 
devil,  that  the  road  which  led  to  destruction 
was  crowded,  while  few  would  enter  the  nar- 
now  gates  of  life.  He  said:  "Many  are 
called  but  few  are  chosen;"  he  told  his  di- 
sciples to  confine  their  good  work  to  the 
lost  sheep  of  the  House  of  Israel,  and  in- 
timated that  it  were  not  wise  to  take  the 
bread  of  children  (his  people)  and  give  it 
to  the  dogs  (other  people).  The  "Go  ye 
into  all  the  world"  is  a  post-resurrection  in- 
terpolation, and  Mr.  Jones  does  not  believe 
in  the  miracle  of  the  resurrection.     Jesus 


228  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

looked  forward  to  the  speedy  ending  and 
destruction  of  the  world,  "when  the  sun  and 
moon  would  turn  black,  and  the  stars  would 
fall;"  and  he  doubted  whether  he  would  find 
any  faith  in  the  world  when  "the  son  of 
man  cometh";  and  it  was  Jesus  who  ex- 
pected to  say  to  the  people  on  his  left,  "de- 
part from  me,  ye  cursed,  into  everlasting 
punishment."  This  is  the  teacher,  whose 
pessimism  is  generally  admitted,  of  whom 
Mr.  Jones  says  that,  he  had  "tremendous  ex- 
pectations." 

"He  believed  there  was  to  be  a  day  after 
today,  and  recognized  his  obligation  to  it," 
writes  Mr.  Jones  in  his  indiscriminate  lauda- 
tion of  Jesus.  Is  that  why  he  said  "Take 
no  thought  of  the  morrow,"  and  predicted 
the  speedy  destruction  of  the  world  .^^  "He 
acknowledged  the  debt  which  can  never  be 
paid  to  the  past."  A  sentence  like  this  has 
all  the  ear-marks  of  a  glittering  generality. 
Did  Jesus  show  gratitude  to  the  past  when 
he  denounced  all  who  had  preceded  him  in 
the  field  of  love  and  labor  as  "thieves  and 
robbers?"  Equally  uncertain  is  the  follow- 
ing: "He  was  honest  enough  to  recognize 
his  obhgations  to  the  unborn."  How  does 
our  clerical  neighbor  arrive  at  such  a  con- 


Some  Modern  Opinions  About  Jesus  229 

elusion?  From  what  teaching  or  saying  of 
Jesus  does  he  infer  his  respect  for  the  rights 
of  posterity?  Indeed,  how  could  a  teacher 
who  said,  '*He  that  belie veth  not  shall  be 
damned,"  he  described  as  recognizing  the 
rights  of  future  generations?  To  menace 
with  damnation  the  future  inquirer  or 
doubter  is  to  seek  to  enslave  as  well  as  to 
insult  the  generations  yet  to  be  born,  instead 
of  ''recognizing  his  obligations"  to  them. 
The  Jesus  Mr.  Jones  is  writing  about  is  not 
in  the  gospels. 

"Do  you  ask  me  if  I  am  a  'Christian'?" 
writes  Mr.  Jones,  and  he  answers  the  ques- 
tion thus:  "I  do  not  know.  Are  you?  If 
anyone  is  inclined  to  give  me  that  high 
name,  with  the  spiritual  and  ethical  conno- 
tation in  mind,  I  am  complimented  and  will 
try  to  merit  it."  As  our  excellent  neighbor 
is  still  in  the  dark,  and  does  not  know 
whether  or  not,  or  in  what  sense  he  is  a 
Christian — unless  he  is  allowed  to  define  the 
word  himself, — and  as  he  also  intimates  that 
he  would  like  to  be  a  Jesus  Christian,  but 
not  a  Church  Christian,  we  humbly  beg 
to  express  this  opinion:  The  American 
churches  of  today,  notwithstanding  all  their 
shortcomings,   are,   on   every   question   of 


230  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

ethics  and  science,  of  charity  and  the  hu- 
manities, far  in  advance  of  Jesus,  and  that 
in  these  churches  there  are  men  and  women 
who  in  breadth  of  mind  and  nobiHty  df 
spirit  are  as  good,  and  even  better  than 
Jesus. 

Does  our  neighbor  grasp  our  meaning? 
Charging  all  the  bad  in  a  religion  to  the 
account  of  man,  and  attributing  all  the  good 
to  God,  or  to  a  demi-god,  is,  after  all,  only  a 
dodge.  Had  not  the  disciples  of  Jesus  been 
braver  than  their  master,  his  rehgion  would 
not  have  come  down  to  us.  And  had  the 
Christian  church  lived  up  to  the  letter  of 
this  Semitic  teacher,  Europe  would  never 
have  embraced  Christianity.  By  moderniz- 
ing Jesus,  by  selecting  his  more  essential 
teachings,  and  relegating  his  eccentricities 
to  the  background,  by  making  his  name 
synonymous  with  the  best  aspirations  of  hu- 
manity, by  idealizing  his  character  and  en- 
closing it  with  a  human  halo,  the  churches 
have  saved  Jesus  from  oblivion.  Jesus  was 
a  tribal  teacher,  the  church  universalized 
him;  Jesus  had  no  gospel  for  women,  the 
church  has  after  much  hesitation  and  wav- 
ering converted  him  to  the  European  atti- 
tude toward  women;  Jesus  was  silent  on 


Some  Modern   Opinions  About  Jesus   231 

the  question  of  slavery,  the  churches  have 
urged  him  with  success  to  champion  the 
cause  of  the  bondsman;  Jesus  denounced 
hberty  of  conscience  when  he  threatened 
with  hell-fire  the  unbeliever ;  but  the  churches 
have  won  him  over  to  the  modern  secular 
principle  of  religious  tolerance;  Jesus  be- 
heved  only  in  the  salvation  of  the  elect,  but 
the  church  to  a  certain  extent  has  succeeded 
in  reconciling  him  to  the  larger  hope;  Jesus 
was  an  ascetic,  preferring  the  single  life  to 
the  joys  of  the  home,  and  fasting  and  pray- 
ing to  the  duty  and  privilege  of  labor,  but 
the  church  in  America  and  Protestant  Eu- 
rope at  least  has  made  Jesus  a  lover  and  a 
seeker  of  wealth  and  knowledge,  the  two 
great  forces  of  civilization.    No  longer  does 
Jesus  say,  "hate  your  father  and  mother;" 
no  longer  does  he  cry  in  our  great  thorough- 
fares, ^'blessed  are  the  poor;"  no  longer  is 
his  voice  heard  denouncing  this  world  as  be- 
longing to  the  devil.    The  modern  church, 
modernized  by  science,  has  in  turn  modern- 
ized the  gospels.     And  yet  Mr.  Jones  pre- 
fers to  be  a  Christian  such  as  Jesus  was. 
He  is  repeating  one  of  those  phrases  which 
apologists  use  when  they  give  God  all  the 
praise  and  man  all  the  blame. 


232  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

In  conclusion:  Mr.  Jones  admits  that 
Christianity  is  not  unique,  that  Buddha 
conquered  greater  tyrannies  than  Christ; 
that  *'humihty  and  self-sacrifice  .  .  .  have 
world-wide  foundations;'*  but  he  draws  no 
conclusions  from  these  important  facts,  but 
returns  in  a  hurry  to  say  that  Jesus  is  the 
"finest  and  dearest  stream  swelling  the 
mighty  tide  of  history."  The  only  objec- 
tion we  have  to  Mr.  Jones'  Jesus  is  that  he 
is  not  real. 


ANOTHER       RHETORICAL       JESUS 

The  Rev.  W.  H.  H.  Boyle,  of  St.  Paul, 
improves  even  on  Mr.  Jones'  superlative 
tribute  to  Jesus.    He  says: 

"Can  you  imagine  such  a  thing  as  a  black  sun, 
or  the  reversal  of  creation  or  the  annihilation  of 
primal  light?  Then,  give  rest  to  imagination 
and  soberly  think  what  it  would  mean  to  have 
the  spiritual  processes  of  two  millenniums  re- 
versed, to  have  the  light  of  life  in  the  unique 
personally  of  Jesus  forever  eclipsed." 

Here  is  an  idolator,  indeed.  To  make  an 
idol  of  his  Jesus  he  takes  a  sponge,  and  with- 
out a  twinge  of  conscience,  wipes  out  all 
the  beauty  and  grandeur  of  the  ancient 
world.  Has  this  gentleman  never  heard  of 
Greece?  During  a  short  existence,  in  only 
two  centuries  and  a  half,  that  little  land  of 
Greece  achieved  triumphs  in  the  life  of  the 
mind  so  unparalleled  as  to  bring  all  the  sub- 
sequent centuries  upon  their  knees  before  it. 
In  philosophy,  in  poetry, — lyrical,  epical, 
dramatic, — in  sculpture,  in  statesmanship, 
in  ethics,  in  literature,  in  civilization, — 
where  is  there  another  Greece? 

Oh,  land  of  Sophocles!  whose  poetry  is  the 
most  perfect  flower  the  earth  has  ever  borne, 

233 


234  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

—of  Phidias  and  Praxiteles !  whose  immor- 
tal children  time  cannot  destroy,  though  the 
gods  are  dead — whose  masterpieces  the 
earth  wears  as  the  best  gem  upon  her  brow, 
— of  Aristotle!  the  intellect  of  the  world, — 
of  Socrates!  the  "parens  philosophiae,  and 
its  first  martyr! — of  Aristides!  the  Just — 
of  Phocion  and  Epaminondas! — of  Chillon 
and  Anarcharchis !  whose  devotion  to  duty 
and  beauty  have  perfumed  the  centuries! 
O,  Athens,  the  bloom  of  the  world!  Hear 
this  sectarian  clergyman,  in  his  black  Sun- 
day robes,  closing  his  eyes  upon  all  thine 
immortal  contributions,  pulling  down  like 
a  vandal,  as  did  the  early  Christians,  the 
libraries  and  temples,  the  culture  and  civil- 
ization of  the  ancient  world — the  monu- 
ments of  thy  unfading  glory — to  build 
therewith  a  pedestal  for  his  mythical  Christ ! 
I  can  imagine  the  reverend  advocate  say- 
ing: "But  there  was  slavery  in  Greece,  and 
immorality,  too," — of  course,  and  is  the 
Christian  world  free  from  them?  Has 
Christ  after  two  thousand  years  abolished 
war?  Indeed,  he  came  to  bring,  as  he  says, 
*'not  peace,  but  a  sword !"  Has  Jesus  healed 
the  world  of  the  maladies  for  which  we 
blame  the  Pagan  world?    Has  he  made  hu- 


Another  Rhetorical  Jesus  235 


manity  free?  Has  he  saved  the  world  from 
the  fear  of  hell?  Has  he  redeemed  man 
from  the  blight  of  ignorance?  Has  he 
broken  the  yoke  of  superstition  and  preist- 
craft?  Has  he  even  succeeded  in  uniting 
into  one  loving  fold  his  own  disciples? 
How,  then,  can  this  clergyman,  with  any 
conscience  for  truth,  compare  a  world  de- 
prived of  the  god  of  his  sect,  to  a  tomb — to 
a  blind  man  groping  under  a  blackened 
sun?  Must  a  man  rob  the  long  past  in 
order  to  provide  clothing  for  his  idol  ?  Must 
he  close  his  eyes  upon  all  history  before  he 
can  behold  the  beauty  of  his  own  cult? 
But  let  us  quote  again: 

"To  efface  from  the  statute  books  of  Chris- 
tendom every  law  which  has  its  basal  principle 
in  Christian  ethics;  to  abolish  every  institution 
which  ministers  to  human  need  and  misfortune 
in  the  name  of  Him  whose  sympathy  is  the 
heart  of  the  divine;  to  lower  every  sense  of 
moral  obligation  between  man  and  man  to  the 
old  level  of  Paganism  to  silence  the  great  ora- 
torios which  have  made  music  the  echo  of  the 
divine;  to  take  down  from  the  galleries  of  the 
world  the  sacred  canvases  with  which  genius 
has  sanctified  them ;  to  obliterate  from  memorial 
symbolism  the  cross  of  sublime  renunciation 
which  has  been  the  rebuke  of  human  selfish- 
ness;   to    disband    every    organization    which 


236  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

makes  prayer,  through  the  merit  of  one  great 
name,  the  hand  of  man  upon  the  arm  of  God — 
you  may  be  able  to  think  of  an  ocean  without 
a  harbor,  of  a  sky  without  a  sun,  of  a  garden 
without  a  flower,  of  a  face  without  a  smile,  of 
a  home  without  a  mother;  but,  can  you  think 
of  a  world  with  holiness  and  happiness  in  it 
and  Jesus  gone  out  of  it?  You  cannot, 
"Then,  come,  let  us  adore  him,"  etc.,  etc. 

Observe  how  this  special  pleader  avoids 
breathing  so  much  as  a  word  about  any  of 
the  many  evils  which  may  be  laid  at  the 
door  of  his  religion  with  as  much  show  of 
reason  as  the  benefits  he  enumerates. 

What  about  the  dark  ages  which  held  all 
Europe  for  the  space  of  a  thousand  years 
in  the  clutches  of  an  ignorance  the  like  of 
which  no  other  religion  in  the  world  had 
known? 

What  about  the  atrocious  inquisition  to 
which  no  other  religion  in  the  world  had 
ever  been  able  to  give  the  swing  that  Chris- 
tianity did? 

What  about  the  persecution  and  burning 
of  helpless  women  as  witches?  Is  there 
anything  as  infamous  as  that  in  any  religion 
outside  of  ours? 

What  about  the  wholesale  massacres  in 
the  name  of  the  true  faith? 


Another  Rhetorical  Jesus  237 

What  about  the  centuries  of  rehgious 
wars,  the  most  imbecile  as  well  as  the  most 
bloody,  from  the  effects  of  which  Germany, 
France,  Italy  and  England  are  still  suffer- 
ing today? 

And  need  we  also  call  attention  to  that 
obstinate  resistance  to  science  and  progress, 
which  rewarded  every  discoverer  of  a  new 
power  for  man,  with  the  halter  or  the  stake, 
which  filled  the  dungeons  with  the  elite  of 
Europe, — which  even  dug  open  graves  to 
punish  the  bones  of  the  dead  savants  and 
illuminators  of  man? 

The  Pagans,  in  their  gladitorial  games, 
sacrificed  the  lives  of  slaves:  Christianity 
made  a  holocaust  of  the  noblest  intellects  of 
Europe. 

And  shall  we  speak  of  the  bigotry,  the 
fanaticism,  the  bitter  sectarian  prejudices 
which  to  this  day  embitter  the  life  of  the 
world?  Are  not  these,  too,  the  fruits  of 
Christianity? 

We  know  the  answer  which  the  reverend 
gentleman  would  make  to  this:  *'A11  the 
evils  you  speak  of  are  chargeable,  not  to 
Christianity,  but  to  its  abuse."  But  we  have 
already  shown  that  that  argument  won't  do. 
We  might  as  well  say  that  all  the  evil  of 


238  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

Paganism  was  due  to  its  abuse.  The. mere 
fact  that  Christianity  lent  itself  to  such 
fearful  distortions,  and  was  capable  of 
arousing  the  worst  passions  in  man  on  such 
a  fearful  scale,  is  condemnation  enough.  It 
shows  that  there  was  in  it  a  potentiality  for 
evil  beyond  compare.  Moreover,  wherein 
does  a  "divine"  religion  differ  from  a  man- 
made  cult,  it  it  is  equally  powerless  to  pro- 
tect itself  against  perversion?  In  what 
sense  is  Jesus  a  god,  while  all  his  rivals 
were  "mere  men,"  if  he  is  as  helpless  to 
prevent  the  abuse  of  his  teachings  as  they 
were.^  But  it  would  not  be  difficult  to  show 
that  the  characteristic  crimes  we  have 
scheduled  are  the  direct  inspiration  of  a  reli- 
gion claiming  exclusiveness  and  infallibility. 
Such  texts  as,  "there  is  no  other  named  given 
under  heaven  by  which  men  can  be  saved;" 
"Let  such  an  one  (the  man  who  will  not  be 
converted)  be  like  a  heathen  and  a  publican 
to  you;"  John's  advice  to  refrain  from  say- 
ing "God  speed"  to  the  alien  in  faith;  the 
bible  command  not  to  "suffer  a  witch  to 
live;"  and  many  of  the  dogmas  which  might 
be  cited, — corrupted  the  sympathies,  per- 
verted the  judgment  of  the  noblest,  while  at 
the  same  time  they  stung  the  evil-minded 


Another  Rhetorical  Jesus  239 


into  something  like  madness.  The  world 
knew  nothing  of  the  tyranny  of  dogma,  or 
rehgious  oppression  and  persecution,  com- 
paratively speaking,  until  the  advent  of  the 
Jewish-Christian  Church. 

"Verily  I  say  unto  you,  it  shall  be  more 
tolerable  for  the  land  of  Sodom  and  of  Go- 
morrah, in  the  day  of  judgment,  than  for 
that  city,"  said  Jesus,  speaking  of  the 
people  who  might  not  accept  his  teachings. 
How  can  Christianity  be  a  religion  of  love, 
and  how  can  it  believe  in  tolerance,  when  it 
threatents  the  unbeliever  with  a  fate  worse 
than  that  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah? 

The  benefits  which  the  Rev.  Boyle  pa- 
rades as  the  direct  fruit  of  his  cult,  did  not 
appear  until  after  the  Renaissance,  that  is 
to  say, — the  return  to  Pagan  culture  and 
ideals.  The  art  and  science  and  the  human- 
ities which  he  praises,  followed  upon  the 
gradual  decline  of  the  Jewish-Christian  re- 
ligion which  had  already  destroyed  two 
civilizations. 

But  Greece  and  Rome  triumphed.  To 
this  day,  if  we  need  models  in  poetry,  in 
art,  in  philosophy,  in  literature,  in  politics, 
in  patriotism,  in  service  to  the  public,  in 
heroism  and  devotion  to  ideals — we  must  go 


240  The  Truth  About  Jesus 


to  the  Greeks  and  the  Romans.  Not  that 
these  nations  were  by  any  means  perfect, 
but  because  they  have  not  been  surpassed. 
In  our  colleges  and  schools,  when  we  wish 
to  bring  up  our  children  in  the  ways  of 
wisdom  and  beauty,  we  do  not  give  them 
the  Christian  fathers  to  read,  we  give  them 
the  Pagan  classics. 

We  ask  this  St.  Paul  clergyman  to  read 
Gibbons'  tribute  to  Pagan  Rome:  "If  a 
man  was  called  upon  to  fix  a  period  in  the 
history  of  the  world  during  which  the  con- 
dition of  the  human  race  was  most  happy 
and  prosperous,  he  would  without  hesita- 
tion name  that  which  elapsed  from  the 
death  of  Domitian  to  t^e  accession  of  Com- 
modus."  This  period  included  such  men  and 
rulers  as  Nerva,  Trajan,  Adrian,  Antoninus 
Pius,  and  above  all,  the  greatest  of  them 
all — the  greatest  ruler  our  earth  has  ever 
owned — Marcus  Aurelius  Antoninus.  Let 
the  Rev.  W.  H.  H.  Boyle  look  over  the 
names  of  the  kings  of  Israel  and  of  Chris- 
tian France,  Spain,  Italy  and  England,  and 
find  among  them  any  one  that  can  come  up 
to  the  stature  of  these  Pagan  monarchs. 


"WE  OWE  EVERYTHING  TO 
JESUS" 

But,  behold !  another  clergyman  with  the 
claim  that  the  modern  world  owes  all  its 
joy  and  cheer,  during  the  Christmas  season, 
"to  the  babe  in  Bethlehem."  "What  was  it 
that  brought  about  such  a  condition  that 
crowds  the  stores,  that  overflows  the  mails, 
and  loads  the  express  with  packages  of 
every  description?  The  little  babe  in  Beth- 
lehem set  all  this  in  motion, — the  wreath, 
the  holly,  are  all  from  him." 

When  we  read  the  above  and  more  to  the 
same  effect,  we  wrote  to  the  Rev.  W.  A. 
Bartlett,*  the  author  of  the  words  quoted, 
asking  him  if  he  was  correctly  reported. 
We  reproduce  herewith  a  copy  of  our  letter : 

Dec.  20,  1904. 
Rev.  W.  A.  Bartlett, 

Washington  Boul.  and  Ann  St.,  Chicago. 
Dear  Mr.  Bartlett  :  In  the  report  of  your  ser- 
mon of  last  Sunday  you  are  represented  as  claiming 
that  it  is  to  the  "babe  in  Bethlehem"  we  owe  the 
Christmas  festival,  the  giving  of  presents,  etc.,  etc. 
I  write  to  ascertain  whether  this  report  has  stated 
your  position  correctly?  I  am  sure  you  know  that 
Christmas  is  only  a  recomposition  of  an  old  Pagan 

♦Pastor  First  Congregational  Church,  Chicago. 
241 


242  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

festival,  and  that  "giving  presents"  at  this  season 
is  a  much  older  practice  than  Christianity.  Of 
course,  you  do  not  believe  that  Christmas  is  cele- 
brated in  December  and  on  the  25th  of  the  month 
because  Jesus  was  born  on  that  day.  You  know 
as  well  as  I  do  of  the  Pagan  festivals  celebrated  in 
the  month  of  December  throughout  the  Roman 
Empire — celebrations  which  were  accompanied  with 
the  giving  and  receiving  of  presents.  Moreover, 
you  know  also,  as  every  student  does,  that  in  the 
Latin  countries  of  Europe  it  is  not  on  Christmas 
day,  but  on  New  Year's  day,  that  presents  are  ex- 
changed. Surely  you  would  not  claim  that  for  New 
Year's  day,  too,  the  world  is  indebted  to  the  Beth- 
lehem babe.  You  must  also  have  known  that  the 
use  of  the  evergreen  and  the  holy  was  in  vogue 
among  the  Druids  of  Pagan  times.  Be  kind  enough, 
therefore,  to  give  me,  if  I  am  not  asking  too  much, 
the  facts  which  led  you  to  make  the  statement  to 
which  I  have  called  your  attention,  and  believe  me, 
with  great  respect,  etc. 

To  this  neighborly  letter  the  reverend 
gentleman  did  not  condescend  to  send  an 
acknowledgment.  We  knocked  at  his  door, 
as  it  were,  and  he,  a  minister  of  the  Gospel, 
declined  to  open  it  unto  us.  Clergymen, 
as  a  rule,  say  that  they  are  happy  when 
people  will  let  them  preach  the  gospel  to 
them.  In  our  case,  we  saved  the  clergyman 
from  calling  upon  us,  we  called  upon  him — 
that  is  to  say,  we  wrote  and  gave  him  an 


*We  Owe  Everything  to  Jesus''      243 

opportunity  to  enlighten  us,  to  bring  his 
influence  to  bear  upon  us,  to  open  our  eyes 
to  the  error  of  our  ways, — and  he  would 
have  nothing  to  do  with  us.  Was  not  our 
soul  worth  saving?  Did  the  Rev.  W.  A. 
Bartlett  consider  us  beyond  hope.'*  We  ask 
this  clergyman  to  place  his  hand  upon  his 
conscience  and  ask  himself  whether  he  did 
the  brotherly  thing  in  not  returning  a  friend- 
ly and  kindly  answer  to  our  honest  inquiry 
for  truth.  But  he  did  not  answer  us, 
because  he  had  no  real  faith  in  his  gospel. 
It  was  not  good  enough  for  an  inquirer. 

But  the  clergyman,  according  to  reports, 
made  an  attempt  on  the  Sunday  following 
the  receipt  of  our  letter,  before  his  congre- 
gation, to  answer  indirectly  our  question. 
He  denied  that  *' Christmas  w  as  a  recomposi- 
tion  of  an  old  Pagan  festival,"  and  said  that 
the  early  Christians  "fasted  and  wept"  be- 
cause of  these  Pagan  festivals,  and  that  as 
early  as  the  second  century,  the  birth  of 
Jesus  was  commemorated.  In  short,  he  pro- 
nounced it  "a  distortion  of  history"  to  assign 
to  the  Christmas  festival  a  Pagan  origin.  In 
his  great  work  on  the  History  of  Civiliza- 
tion^ Buckle  says  this,  to  which  we  call  Dr. 
Bartlett's  attention:    "As  soon  as  eminent 


244  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

men  grown  unwilling  to  enter  any  profession, 
the  luster  of  that  profession  will  be  tarn- 
ished; first  its  reputation  will  be  lessened, 
then  its  power  abridged.'*  We  fear  this  is 
true  of  Mr.  Bartlett's  profession. 

How  can  Christian  ministers  hope  to  en- 
gage the  interest  of  the  reading  public  if 
they  themselves  abstain  from  reading?  Ask 
a  secular  newspaper  about  the  origin  of  the 
Christmas  celebration,  and  it  will  tell  you 
the  truth.  On  the  very  Sunday  that  Dr. 
Bartlett  was  denouncing,  in  his  church,  our 
claim  that  the  Pagans  gave  us  the  December 
season  of  joy  and  merry-making,  as  *'a  dis- 
tortion of  history,"  and  editorial  in  the  Chi- 
cago Tribune  said  this: 

But  the  festive  character  of  the  celebration, 
the  giving  of  presents,  the  feasting  and  merri- 
ment, the  use  of  evergreen  and  holly  and  mistle- 
toe, are  all  remnants  of  Pagan  rites. 

Continuing,  the  same  editorial  called  at- 
tention to  the  antiquity  of  the  institution: 

Long  before  the  shepherds  on  the  Judean 
plains  saw  the  star  rise  in  the  east  and  heard 
the  tidings  of  "Peace  on  earth,  good  will  to 
man,"  the  Roman  populace  surged  through  the 
streets  at  the  feast  of  Saturn,  giving  themselves 
up  to  wild  license  and  boisterous  merry  making. 


^'We  Oive  Everything  to  Jesus'*      245 

They  exchanged  presents,  they  decorated  their 
dweUings  and  temples  with  green  boughs ;  slaves 
were  given  special  privileges,  and  the  spirit  of 
good  will  was  abroad  among  men.  This  Ro- 
man Saturnalia  came  at  the  winter  solstice,  the 
same  as  does  our  Christmas  day,  while  the  birth 
of  Christ  is  widely  believed  to  have  taken  place 
at  some  other  season  of  the  year. 

But  Dr.  Bartlett  may  have  had  in  mind 
the  quotation  from  Anastasius: 

"Our  Lord,  Jesus  Christ,  was  born  of  the 
Holy  Virgin,  Mary,  in  Bethlehem,  at  one 
o'clock  in  the  afternoon  of  December  25th," 
--appearing  to  quote  from  some  old  manu- 
script which,  unfortunately,  is  not  to  be 
found  anywhere.  But  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria, in  the  year  210  A.  D.,  dismisses  all 
guesses  as  to  when  Jesus  was  born, — the 
18th  of  April,  19th  of  May,  etc.,— as 
products  of  reckless  speculation.  March 
28th  is  given  as  Jesus'  birthday  in  De  Pa- 
scha  Computiiis,  in  the  year  243.  Jan.  5th 
is  the  date  defended  by  Epiphanius.  Bara- 
daens,  Bishop  of  Odessa,  says:  "No  one 
knows  exactly  the  day  of  the  nativity  of 
our  Lord:  this  only  is  certain  from  what 
Luke  writes,  that  he  was  born  in  the  night." 
Poor  Dr.  Bartlett,  his  December  25th  does 
not  receive  support  from  the  Fathers. 


246  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

For  our  clerical  brother's  sake,  we  quote 
some  more  from  the  Tribune  editorial: 

Primeval  man  looked  upon  the  sun  as  the 
revelation  of  divinity.  When  the  shortest  day 
of  the  year  was  passed,  when  the  sun  began  his 
march  northward,  the  primitive  man  rejoiced 
in  the  thought  of  the  coming  seedtime  and  sum- 
mer, and  he  made  feasts  and  revelry  the  mode 
of  expressing  the  gladness  of  his  heart.  Among 
the  sun  worshipers  of  Persia,  among  the  Druids 
of  the  far  north,  among  the  Phoenicians,  among 
the  Romans,  and  among  the  ancient  Goths  and 
Saxons  the  winter  solstice  was  the  occasion  of 
festivities.  Many  of  them  were  rude  and  bar- 
barous, but  they  were  all  distinguished  by  hearty 
and  profuse  hospitality. 

And  yet  our  neighbor  calls  it  "distortion 
of  history"  to  connect  Christmas  with  the 
Pagan  festival,  celebrated  about  this  time. 
We  quote  once  more  from  the  Secular 
press : 

The  Christian  church  did  not  abolish  these 
heathen  cerem.onies,  but  grafted  upon  them  a 
deeper  spiritual  meaning.  For  this  reason 
Christmas  is  an  institution  which  memorializes 
the  best  there  was  in  Pagan  man.  Its  good 
cheer,  its  charity,  its  sports,  its  feasting,  and  the 
features  which  most  endear  it  to  children  are 
all  the  heritage  of  our  Pagan  ancestors. 

How  refreshing  this,  compared  with  the 


"We  Owe  Everything  to  Jesus**      247 

clergyman's  silence,  or  cry  of  "distortion." 
But  in  one  thing  the  doctor  is  correct. 
The  early  Christians  did  bewail  the  Pagan 
festivals,  as  they  did  everything  else  that 
was  Pagan.  But  it  did  not  help  them  at 
all;  they  were  compelled  to  acquiesce.  The 
Christians  have  "fasted  and  prayed"  also 
against  science,  progress,  and  modern 
thought,  but  what  good  has  it  done?  They 
asked  God  to  hook  Theodore  Parker's 
tongue;  to  overthrow  Darwin,  and  to  con- 
found the  wisdom  of  this  world,  but  the 
prayer  remains  unanswered.  Yes,  the  doctor 
is  right,  the  church  has  "fasted  and  prayed" 
against  religious  tolerance,  against  the  use 
of  Sunday  as  a  day  of  recreation, — the 
opening  of  galleries  and  libraries  on  that 
day,  the  advancement  of  women,  the  eman- 
cipation of  the  negro,  the  secularization  of 
education,  the  revision  of  old  creeds,  and 
a  thousand  other  things.  But  their  oppo- 
sition has  only  damaged  their  own  cause. 
They  did  try  to  suppress  the  Pagan  festival, 
which  we  call  Christmas,  and  the  Puritans 
in  this  country,  until  recently,  abstained 
from  all  recognition  of  the  day,  and  called 
it  "Popery,"  and  "Paganism,"  but  their 
efforts    bore    no    fruit.      Dr.    Bartlett,    if 


248  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

he  will  read,  will  learn  that  for  many- 
years,  in  England  and  in  this  country,  the 
observance  of  Christmas  was  forbidden  by 
law  under  severe  penalties.  As  to  our  being 
indebted  for  the  cheer  and  merriment  of  the 
December  festival  to  the  ''Bethlehem  babe," 
the  doctor  must  inform  himself  of  those 
acts  of  Parliament  which,  under  the  Puritan 
regime,  compelled  people  to  mourn  on 
Christmas  day  and  to  abstain  from  merry- 
making. In  Christian  Connecticut,  for  a 
man  to  have  a  sprig  of  holly  in  his  house 
on  Christmas  day  was  a  finable  crime.  In 
Massachusetts,  any  Christian  detected  cele- 
brating Christmas  was  fined  five  shillings 
and  costs.  But,  see,  having  failed  to  sup- 
press these  good  institutions,  they  now  turn 
about  and  claim  that  they  have  always  be- 
lieved in  them,  and  that,  in  fact,  we  would 
not  now  be  enjoying  any  one  of  these  bene- 
fits but  for  the  Christian  Chruch. 

In  conclusion,  we  have  one  other  word  to 
say  to  the  three  clerical  teachers  from  whose 
writings  we  have  quoted.  Against  them  we 
are  constrained  to  bring  the  charge  of  loose- 
ness in  thought.  They  seem  to  have  little 
conscience  for  evidence.  Mr.  Jones  says, 
for  instance: 


'We  Owe  Everything  to  Jesus''      249 


"In  short,  I  am  compelled  to  think  that  this 
Light  of  Souls,  this  saving  and  redeeming  spirit, 
was  the  loved  and  loving  child  of  Joseph,  the 
carpenter,  and  the  loyal  wife  Mary.  I  believe 
this,  notwithstanding  the  stories  of  immaculate 
conceptions,  star-guided  magi,  choiring  angels 
and  adoring  shepards  that  gathered  around  the 
birth-night." 

Which  is  another  way  of  saying  that  he 
is  "compelled  to  beheve"  against  the  evi- 
dence, merely  because  it  is  his  pleasure  or 
interest  to  do  so.  This  is  not  very  edifying, 
to  be  sure.  Mr.  Jones  takes  all  his  infor- 
mation about  Joseph  and  Mary  and  Jesus 
from  the  gospels,  and  yet  the  gospels  clearly 
contradict  his  conclusions.  Mary,  the 
mother  of  Jesus,  gives  her  word  of  honor 
that  Joseph  was  not  the  father  of  her  child, 
and  Joseph  himself  testifies  that  he  is  not 
Jesus'  father,  but  Mr.  Jones  pays  no  at- 
tention to  their  testimony;  he  wishes  Joseph 
to  be  the  father  of  Jesus,  and  that  ought 
to  be  sufficient  evidence,  he  thinks.  We 
quote  from  the  gospel: 

"Now  the  birth  of  Jesus  Christ  was  on  this 
wise:  When  his  mother  Mary  had  been  be- 
trothed to  Joseph,  before  they  came  together 
she  was  found  with  child  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
And   Joseph,    her    husband,   being   a   righteous 


250  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

man,  and  not  willing  to  make  her  a  public  ex- 
ample, was  minded  to  put  her  away  privily. 
But  when  he  thought  on  these  things,  behold, 
an  angel  of  the  Lord  appeared  unto  him  in  a 
dream,  saying,  Joseph,  thou  son  of  David,  fear 
not  to  take  unto  thee  Mary  thy  wife;  for  that 
which  is  conceived  in  her  is  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 

Now,  if  Joseph  admits  he  was  not  Jesus' 
father,  and  Mary  corroborates  his  testi- 
mony (See  Luke,  1st  chapter),  Jesus  was, 
if  he  ever  Hved,  and  the  records  which  give 
Mr.  Jones  his  ideal  Jesus  are  rehable,  the 
son  of  a  man  who  has  succeeded  in  con- 
ceahng  his  identity,  unless,  of  course,  we 
believe  in  the  virgin  birth.  If  the  real 
father  of  Jesus  had  come  forth  and  owned 
his  son,  and  Mary  had  acknowledged  that 
he  was  the  father  of  her  child,  what  would 
have  become  of  Christianity?  We  hope 
these  clergymen  who  have  dwelt,  as 
Emerson  says,  "with  noxious  exaggeration 
about  the  person  of  Jesus,"  will  reflect 
upon  this,  and  while  doing  so,  will  they 
not  also  remember  this  other  saying  of  the 
Concord  philosopher:  "The  vice  of  our 
theology  is  seen  in  the  claim 
that  Jesus  was  something  different  from 
a  man." 


**We  Owe  Everything  to  Jesus''       251 

We  take  our  leave  of  the  three  clergy- 
men, assuring  them  that  in  what  we  have 
said  we  have  not  been  actuated,  in  the  least, 
by  any  personal  motive  whatever,  and  that 
we  have  only  done  to  them  what  we  would 
have  them  do  to  us. 


Head  of  a  God  with  Horns. 
Museum  of  St.  Germain. 


A  LIBERAL  JEW  ON  JESUS 


FELIX    ADLER,    PRAISES   JESUS 

That  it  is  very  easy  for  scholars  to  follow 
the  people  instead  of  leading  them,  and  to 
side  with  the  view  that  commands  the 
majority,  receives  fresh  confirmation  from 
the  recent  utterances  of  the  founder  of  the 
Ethical  Culture  Society  in  New  York. 
Professor  Adler,  the  son  of  a  rabbi,  and 
at  one  time  a  freethinker,  has  slowly  drifted 
into  orthodox  w^aters,  after  having  tried  for 
a  period  of  years  the  open  seas,  and  has  be- 
come a  more  enthusiastic  champion  of  the 
god  of  the  Christians  than  many  a  Christian 
scholar  whom  we  could  name.  The  pendu- 
lum in  the  Adler  case  has  swung  clear  to 
the  opposite  side.  We  do  not  find  fault 
with  a  man  because  he  changes  his  views, 
we  only  ask  for  reasons  for  the  change.  It 
will  be  seen  by  the  following  extracts  from 
Adler's  printed  lectures  that  he  has  made 
absolutely  no  critical  study  of  the  sources 
of  the  Jesus  story,  but  has  merely,  and  hur- 
riedly at  that,  accepted  the  conventional 
estimate  of  Jesus  and  enlarged  upon  it. 
Jesus  is  entitled  to  all  the  praise  which  is 

252 


A  Liberal  Jew  on  Jesus  253 

due  him,  but  it  must  first  be  shown  that  in 
praising  him  we  are  not  sacrificing  the  truth. 
Praising  any  man  at  such  a  cost  is  merely 
flattering  the  masses  and  bowing  to  the 
fashion  of  the  day. 

Let  us  hear  what  Professor  Adler  has  to 
say  about  Jesus.    He  writes : 

It  has  been  said  that  if  Christ  came  to  New 
York  or  Chicago,  they  would  stone  him  in  the 
very  churches.  It  is  not  so !  If  Christ  came  to 
New  York  or  Chicago,  the  pubHcans  and  sinners 
would  sit  at  his  feet !  For  they  would  know 
that  he  cared  for  them  better  than  they  in  their 
darkness  knew  how  to  care  for  themselves,  and 
they  would  love  him  as  they  loved  him  in  the 
days  of  yore. 

This  would  sound  pious  in  the  mouth  of  a 
Moody  or  a  Torrey,  but,  we  confess,  it 
sounds  like  affectation  in  the  mouth  of  the 
free  thinking  son  of  a  rabbi.  That  Prof. 
Adler  enters  here  into  a  field  for  which  his 
early  Jewish  training  has  not  fitted  him,  is 
apparent  from  the  hasty  way  in  which  he 
has  put  his  sentences  together.  *Tt  has  been 
said,'*  he  writes,  "that  if  Christ  came  to 
New  York  or  Chicago,  they  would  stone 
him  in  the  very  churches.  It  is  not  so." 
Why  is  it  not  so?     And  he  answers:     *Tf 


254  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

Christ  came  to  New  York  or  Chicago,  the 
pubHcans  and  sinners  would  sit  at  his  feet.'* 
But  what  has  the  reception  which  pubhcans 
and  sinners  might  give  Jesus  to  do  with 
how  the  churches  would  receive  him?  He 
proves  that  Jesus  would  not  be  stoned  in 
the  churches  of  New  York  and  Chicago  by 
saying  that  the  "publicans  and  sinners 
would  sit  at  his  feet."  Does  he  mean  that 
"New  York  and  Chicago  churches"  and 
"publicans  and  sinners"  are  the  same 
thing?  "Publicans  and  sinners"  might  wel- 
come him,  and  still  the  churches  might  stone 
him,  which  in  fact,  according  to  Adler's 
own  admission,  was  the  case  in  Jerusalem, 
where  the  syangogues  conspired  against 
Jesus,  while  Mary  Magdalene  sat  at  his 
feet.  Nor  are  his  words  about  "the  publi- 
cans and  sinners  loving  Jesus  as  they  loved 
him  in  the  days  of  yore"  edifying.  Who 
does  he  mean  by  the  "publicans  and  sin- 
ners," and  how  many  of  them  loved  Jesus 
in  the  days  of  yore,  and  why  should  this 
class  of  people  have  felt  a  special  love  for 
him? 

On  the  question  of  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus,  Prof.  Adler  says  this : 

"It  is   sometimes   insinuated  that  the   entire 


A  Liberal  Jetv  on  Jesus  255 

Christian  doctrine  depends  on  the  accounts  con- 
tained in  the -New  Testament,  purporting  that 
Jesus  actually  rose  on  the  third  day  and  was 
seen  by  his  followers;  and  that  if  these  reports 
are  found  to  be  contradictory,  unsupported  by 
sufficient  evidence,  and  in  themselves  incredible, 
then  the  bottom  falls  out  of  the  belief  in  im- 
mortality as  represented  by  Christianity." 

It  was  the  Apostle  Paul  himself  who  said 
that  *'if  Jesus  has  not  risen  from  the  dead, 
then  is  our  faith  in  vain, — and  we  are,  of  all 
men,  most  miserable."  So,  you  see,  friend 
Adler,  it  is  not  "sometimes  insinuated,"  as 
you  say,  but  it  is  openly,  and  to  our  think- 
ing, logically  asserted,  that  if  Jesus  did  not 
rise  from  the  dead,  the  whole  fabric  of 
Christian  eschatology  falls  to  the  ground. 
But  we  must  remember  that  Prof.  Adler 
has  not  been  brought  up  a  Christian.  He 
has  acquired  his  Christian  predilections  only 
recently,  so  to  speak,  hence  his  unfamiliar- 
ity  with  its  Scriptures.  Continuing,  the 
Professor  says : 

"But  similar  reports  have  arisen  in  the  world 
time  and  again,  apparitions  of  the  dead  have 
been  seen  and  have  been  taken  for  real ;  and  yet 
such  stories,  after  being  current  for  a  time,  in- 
variably have  passed  into  oblivion.  Why  did 
this  particular  story  persist,  despite  the  paucity 


256  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

and  the  insufficiency  of  the  evidence  ?    Why  did 
it  get  itself  believed  and  take  root?" 

What  shall  we  think  of  such  reasoning 
from  the  platform  of  a  presumable  ration- 
alist movement?  Does  not  the  Professor 
know  that  the  story  of  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus  is  not  original,  but  a  repetition  of 
older  stories  of  the  kind?  Had  the  world 
never  heard  of  such  after-death  apparitions 
before  Jesus'  day,  it  would  never  have  in- 
vented the  story  of  his  resurrection.  And 
how  does  the  Professor  know  that  the  story 
of  Jesus'  resurrection  is  not  going  to  meet 
the  same  fate  which  has  overtaken  all  other 
similar  stories?  Is  it  not  already  passing 
into  the  shade  of  neglect?  Are  not  the  in- 
telligent among  the  Christians  themselves 
beginning  to  explain  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus  allegorically,  denying  altogether  that 
he  rose  from  the  dead  in  a  literal  sense? 
Moreover,  the  pre-Christian  stories  of  simi- 
lar resurrections  lived  to  an  old  age, — two 
or  three  thousand  years — before  they  died, 
and  the  story  of  Jesus'  resurrection  has  yet 
to  prove  its  ability  to  live  longer.  All  mi- 
raculous beliefs  are  disappearing,  and  the 
story  of  the  Christian  resurrection  will  not 
be  an  exception.    But  Prof.  Adler's  motive 


A  Liberal  Jew  on  Jesus  257 


in  believing  that  the  story  of  the  resurrec- 
tion of  Jesus  shall  live,  is  to  offer  it  as  an 
argument  for  immortality,  and  in  so  doing 
he  strains  the  English  language  in  lauding 
Jesus.    He  says: 

"In  my  opinion,  people  believed  in  the  resur- 
rection of  Jesus  because  of  the  precedent  con- 
viction in  the  minds  of  the  disciples  that  such 
a  man  as  Jesus  could  not  die,  because  of  the 
conviction  that  a  personality  of  such  superlative 
excellence,  so  radiant,  so  incomparably  lofty  in 
mien  and  port  and  speech  and  intercourse  with 
others,   could   not  pass   away  like   a   forgotten 
wind,  that  such  a  star  could  not  be  quenched." 
We  regret  to  say  that  there  are  as  many 
assumptions  in  the  above  sentence  as  there 
are  lines  in  it.     Of  course,  if  we  are  for 
emotionalism  and  not  for  exact  and  accu- 
rate conclusions,  Adler's  estimate  of  Jesus 
is  as  rhetorical  as  that  of  Jones  or  Boyle, 
but  if  we  have  any  love  for  historical  truth, 
there  is  not  even  the  shadow  of  evidence, 
for  instance,  that  the  disciples  could  not 
believe  "that  such  a  man  as  Jesus  could  die." 
On  the  contrary,  the  disciples  left  him  at  the 
cross  and  fled,  and  believed  him  dead,  until 
it  was  reported  to  them  that  he  had  been 
seen  alive,  and  even  then  "some  doubted," 
and  one  wished  to  feel  the  fle^h  with  hia 


258  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

fingers  before  he  would  credit  his  eyes. 
Jesus  had  to  eat  and  drink  with  them,  he 
had  to  "open  their  eyes,"  and  perform  vari- 
ous miracles  before  they  would  believe  that 
he  was  not  dead.  The  text  which  says  that 
the  apostles  hesitated  to  believe  in  the  resur- 
rection because  "as  yet  they  knew  not  the 
scripture,  that  he  would  rise  from  the 
dead,"  shows  conclusively  how  imaginary  is 
the  idea  that  there  was  a  "precedent  con- 
viction" in  the  minds  of  the  disciples  that 
such  a  man  as  Jesus  could  not  die.  Appar- 
ently it  was  all  a  matter  of  prophecy,  not 
of  moral  character  at  all.  Yet  in  the  face 
of  all  the  evidence  to  the  contrary.  Prof. 
Adler  tells  his  Carnegie  Hall  audience,  who 
unfortunately  are  even  less  informed  in 
Christian  doctrine  than  their  leader,  that 
"there  was  a  precedent  conviction  in  the 
minds  of  the  disciples  that  such  a  man  as 
Jesus  could  not  die."  And  what  gave  the 
disciples  this  supposed  "precedent  convic- 
tion?" "That  a  personality  of  such  super- 
lative excellence,  so  radiant,  so  incompara- 
bly lofty  in  mien  and  port  and  speech  and 
intercourse  with  others,  could  not  pass  away 
like  a  forgotten  wind,  that  such  a  star  could 
not  be  quenched."     We  are  simply  aston- 


A  Liberal  Jew  on  Jesus  259 

ished,  and  grieved  as  well,  to  see  the  use 
which  so  enlightened  a  man  as  Prof.  Adler 
makes  of  his  gifts.  Will  this  Jewish  ad- 
mirer of  the  god  of  Christendom  kindly 
tell  us  wherein  Jesus  was  superlatively  ex- 
cellent, or  incomparably  lofty  in  mien  and 
port  and  speech  and  intercourse  with  others? 
Was  there  a  weakness  found  in  men  like 
Buddha,  Confucius,  Socrates,  etc.,  from 
which  Jesus  was  free?  That  Jesus  created 
no  such  ideal  impression  upon  his  disciples, 
is  shown  by  the  fact  that  they  represented 
him  as  a  sectarian  and  an  egotist  who  de- 
nounced all  who  had  preceded  him  as  un- 
worthy of  respect  and  to  be  despised. 

And  how  could  a  man  whose  public  life 
did  not  cover  more  than  two  or  three  years 
of  time,  and  who  lived  as  a  celibate  and  a 
monk,  returning  every  night  to  his  cave  in 
the  Mount  of  Olives,  taking  no  active  part 
in  the  business  life — supporting  no  family 
or  parents,  assuming  no  civil  or  social  duties 
— how  can  such  a  man,  we  ask,  be  held  up  as 
a  model  for  the  men  and  women  of  today? 
Jesus,  according  to  his  biographers,  believed 
he  could  raise  the  dead,  and  announced  him- 
self the  equal  of  God.  "I  and  my  father 
are  one,"  he  is  reported  to  have  said;  and 


260  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

one  of  his  apostles  writes:  "He  (Jesus) 
thought  it  no  robbery  to  be  equal  to  God." 
Either  this  report  is  true,  or  it  is  not.  If 
it  is,  what  shall  we  think  of  a  man  who 
thought  he  was  a  god  and  could  raise  the 
dead?  If  the  report  is  not  true,  what  reli- 
ance can  we  place  in  his  biographers  when 
the  things  which  they  affirm  with  the  great- 
est confidence  are  to  be  rejected? 

Yet  Prof.  Adler,  swept  off  his  feet  by 
the  popular  and  conventional  enthusiasm 
about  Jesus,  describes  him  as  "a  person- 
ality of  such  superlative  excellence,  so  radi- 
ant, so  incomparably  lofty  in  mien  and  port 
and  speech  and  intercourse!  with  others," 
that  his  followers  could  not  believe  he  was 
a  mere  mortal.  But  where  is  the  Jesus  to 
correspond  to  this  rhetorical  language? 
He  is  not  in  the  anonymous  gospels.  There 
we  find  only  a  fragmentary  character 
patched  or  pieced  together,  as  it  were,  by 
various  contributors  —  a  character  made 
up  of  the  most  contradictory  elements,  as  we 
have  tried  to  show  in  the  preceding  pages. 
The  Jesus  of  Adler  is  not  in  history,  he  is 
not  even  in  mythology.  There  is  no  one  of 
that  name  and  answering  that  description 
in  the  four  gospels. 


A  Liberal  Jew  on  Jesus  261 

That  a  loose  way  of  speaking  grows 
upon  one  if  one  is  not  careful,  and  that 
sounding  phrases  and  honest  historical  criti- 
cism are  not  the  same  thing,  will  be  seen 
by  Prof.  Adler's  lavish  praise  of  John  Cal- 
vin. He  speaks  of  him  in  terms  almost 
as  glowing  as  he  does  of  Jesus.  He  calls 
Calvin  "that  mighty  and  noble  man." 

That  Calvin  ruled  Geneva  like  a  Russian 
autocrat;  that  he  was  "mighty"  in  a  com- 
munity in  which  Jacques  Gruet  was  be- 
headed because  he  had  "danced,"  and  also 
because  he  had  committed  tlie  grave  offense 
of  saying  that  "JNIoses  was  only  a  man  and 
no  one  knows  what  God  said  to  him,"  and 
in  which  JNIichael  Servetus  was  burned  alive 
for  holding  opniions  contrarj'^  to  those  which 
the  Genevan  pope  was  interested  in, — is 
readily  conceded.  But  was  Calvin 
"mighty"  in  a  beneficent  sense?  Did  his 
power  save  people  from  the  Protestant  in- 
quisition? Was  not  the  Geneva  of  his  day 
called  the  Protestant  Rome?  And  if  he 
did  not  use  his  powerful  influence  to 
further  religious  tolerance  and  intellectual 
honesty;  if  he  did  not  use  his  position  to 
save  men  from  the  grip  of  superstition 
and  the  fear  of  hell,  how  can  Prof.  Adler 


262  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

refer   to   him   as   "that   mighty   and   noble 
man — John  Calvin?" 

It  is  not  our  purpose  to  grudge  Calvin 
any  compliments  which  Felix  Adler  wishes 
to  pay  him.  What  we  grieve  to  see  is,  that 
he  should,  indirectly  at  least,  recommend 
to  the  admiration  of  his  readers  a  man  who, 
if  he  existed  today  and  acted  as  he  did  in 
the  Geneva  of  the  sixteenth  century,  would 
be  regarded  by  every  morally  and  intellec- 
tually awakened  man,  as  a  criminal.  Has 
not  Felix  Adler  examined  the  evidence 
which  incriminates  Calvin  and  proves  him 
beyond  doubt  as  the  murderer  of  Servetus? 
"If  he  (Servetus)  comes  to  Geneva,  I  shall 
see  that  he  does  not  escape  alive,"  wrote 
John  Calvin  to  Theodore  Beza.  And  he 
carried  out  his  fearful  menace;  Servetus 
was  put  to  death  by  the  most  horrible  pun- 
ishment ever  invented — he  was  burned  alive 
in  a  smoking  fire.  What  did  this  mighty 
and  noble  man  do  to  save  a  stranger  and 
a  scholar  from  so  atrocious  a  fate?  Let 
his  eulogist.  Prof.  Adler,  answer.  It  will 
not  do  to  say  that  those  were  different  times. 
A  thousand  voices  were  raised  against  the 
wanton  and  cruel  murder  of  Servetus,  but 
Calvin's  was  not  among  them.     In  fact. 


A  Liberal  Jew  on  Jesus  263 

when  Calvin  himself  was  a  fugitive  and  a 
wanderer,  he  had  written  in  favor  of  reli- 
gious tolerance,  but  no  sooner  did  he  be- 
come the  Protestant  pope  of  Geneva,  than 
he  developed  into  an  exterminator  of  heresy 
by  fire.  Such  is  the  "mighty  and  noble 
man"  held  up  for  our  admiration.  "!Mighty" 
he  was,  but  we  ask  again,  was  he  mighty 
in  a  noble  sense? 

Had  Calvin  been  considered  a  "mighty 
and  noble  man"  by  the  reformers  who  pre- 
ceded Prof.  Adler,  there  would  have  been 
no  Ethical  Culture  societies  in  America  to- 
day. Prof.  Adler  is  indebted  for  the  liber- 
ties which  he  enjoys  in  New  York  to  the 
Voltaires  and  the  Condorcets,  who  regarded 
Calvin  and  his  "isms"  as  pernicious  to  the 
intellectual  life  of  Europe,  and  did  all  they 
could  to  lead  the  people  away  from  them. 
Think  of  the  leader  of  the  Etliical  Societies 
exalting  a  persecutor,  to  say  nothing  of  his 
abominable  theology,  or  of  his  five  aliases, 
as  "that  mighty  and  noble  man, —  John 
Calvin!"  We  feel  grateful  to  Prof.  Adler 
for  organizing  the  Ethical  Societies  in 
American,  but  we  would  be  pleased  to  have 
him  explain  in  what  sense  a  man  of  Calvin's 
small  sympathies  and  terrible  deeds  could 


264  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

be  called  both  "noble  and  mighty."* 
It  was  predicted  some  years  ago  that  the 
founder  of  the  Ethical  Societies  will  before 
long  return  to  the  Jewish  faith  of  his 
fathers.  However  this  may  be,  we  have 
seen,  in  his  estimate  of  Jesus  and  John  Cal- 
vin, evidences  of  his  estrangement  from  ra- 
tionalism, of  which  in  his  younger  days  he 
was  so  able  a  champion.  In  his  criticism 
of  the  Russian  scientist,  MetchnikofF,  of 
the  Pasteur  Institute  in  Paris,  Prof.  Ad- 
ler,  endorsing  the  popular  estimate  of  Jesus, 
accepts  also  the  popular  attitude  toward  sci- 
ence. He  appears  to  prefer  the  doctrine  of 
special  creation  to  the  theory  of  evolution. 
We  would  not  have  believed  this  of  Felix 
Adler  if  we  did  not  have  the  evidence  before 
us.  We  speak  of  this  to  show  the  relation 
between  an  exaggerated  j^raise  of  a  popular 
idol,  and  a  denial  of  the  conclusions  of 
modern  science.  It  is  the  popular  view  which 
Prof.  Adler  champions  in  both  instances. 
In  his  criticism  of  Metchnikoff 's  able  book, 
The  Nature  of  Man^  Prof.  Adler  writes: 

And  to  account  for  the  reason  in  man,  this  di- 
vine spark  that  has  been  set  ablaze  in  him,  it 
is  not  sufficient  to  point  to  an  ape  as  our  an- 

•See  "The  Kingdom  of  God  in  Geneva  Under  Calvin." — M.  AT. 
MangaMrian. 


A  Liberal  Jew  on  Jesus  265 

cestor.  If  we  are  descended  from  an  anthro- 
poid ape  on  the  physical  side,  we  are  not  de- 
scended from  him  in  any  strict  sense  of  the  word 
on  our  rational  side;  for  as  life  is  born  of  life, 
so  reason  is  born  of  reason,  and  if  the  anthropoid 
ape  does  not  possess  reason  as  we  possess  it, 
it  cannot  be  said  that  on  our  rational  side  we  are 
his  progeny. 

If  the  above  had  been  written  fifty  years 
ago,  when  the  doctrine  of  evokition  was  a 
heresy,  or  by  an  orthodox  clergyman  of  to- 
day, we  would  have  taken  no  note  of  it. 
But  coming  as  it  does  from  the  worthy 
founder  of  the  Ethical  Movement  in 
America,  it  deserves  attention.  "If,"  says 
Dr.  Adler,  "we  are  descended  from  an  an- 
thropoid ape  on  the  physical  side,  we  are 
not  descended  from  him  in  any  strict  sense 
of  the  word  on  our  rational  side."  He  is 
not  sure,  evidently,  that  even  physically  man 
is  the  successor  of  the  anthropoid  ape,  but 
he  is  sure  that  "we  are  not  descended  from 
him  ...  on  our  rational  side."  Is 
Dr.  Adler,  then,  a  dualist?  Does  he  be- 
lieve that  there  are  two  eternal  sources, 
from  one  of  which  we  get  our  bodies,  and 
from  the  other  our  "rational  side?"  And 
why  cannot  Dr.  Adler  be  a  monist?  He 
answers,  "for  as  life  is  born  of  life,  so  rea- 


266  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

son  is  born  of  reason,  and  if  the  anthropoid 
ape  does  not  possess  reason  as  we  possess  it, 
it  cannot  be  said  that  on  our  rational  side 
we  are  his  progeny."  Not  so,  good  doctor! 
There  is  no  Hfe  without  reason.  Do  we 
mean  to  say  that  the  jelly-fish,  the  creeping 
worm,  or  the  bud  on  the  tree  has  reason? 
Yes;  not  as  much  reason  as  a  horse  or  a 
dog,  and  certainly  not  as  much  as  a  Metch- 
nikoif  or  an  Adler,  but  these  lower  forms 
of  life  could  not  have  survived  but  for  the 
element  of  rationality  in  them.  We  may 
call  this  instinct,  sensation,  promptings  of 
nature,  but  what's  in  a  name?  The  differ- 
ence between  a  pump  and  a  watch  is  only  a 
difference  of  mechanism.  The  stone  and 
the  soul  represent  different  stages  of  pro- 
gression, not  different  substances.  If  a 
charcoal  can  be  transformed  into  a  dia- 
mond, why  may  not  nature,  with  the  re- 
sources of  infinity  at  her  command,  refine 
a  stone  into  a  soul?  Let  us  not  marvel  at 
this;  it  is  not  less  thinkable  than  the  propo- 
sition of  two  independent  sources  of  life, 
the  one  physical,  the  other  rational.  If 
"life  is  born  of  life,"  where  did  the  first  life 
come  from?  Let  us  have  an  answer  to  that 
question.     And  if,  as  the  professor  says. 


A  Liberal  Jew  on  Jesus  267 

"reason  is  born  of  reason,"  how  did  the  first 
reason  come?  Is  it  not  very  much  simpler 
to  think  in  monistic  terms,  than  to  separate 
hfe  from  reason,  and  mind  from  matter, 
as  Prof.  Adler  does  in  the  words  quoted 
above?  Why  cannot  mind  be  a  state  of 
matter?  What  objection  is  there  to  think- 
ing that  matter,  refined,  elevated,  ripened, 
cultured,  becomes  both  sentient  and  ra- 
tional? If  matter  can  feel,  can  see,  can 
hear,  can  it  not  also  think?  Does  not  the 
horse  see,  hear  and  think?  There  is  no  low- 
ering of  the  dignity  of  man  to  say  that  he 
tastes  with  his  palate,  sees  with  his  eyes, 
hears  with  his  ears,  and  thinks  with  the  gray 
matter  in  his  brain.  Remove  his  optic 
nerve  and  he  becomes  blind,  destroy  the 
ganglia  in  his  brain,  and  he  becomes  mind- 
less. Gold  is  as  much  matter  as  the  dust,  but 
it  is  very  much  more  precious;  so  is  mind 
infinitely  more  precious  than  the  matter 
which  can  only  feel,  see,  taste  or  hear.  "If 
the  anthropoid  ape  does  not  possess  reason 
as  we  possess  it,  it  cannot  be  said  that  on 
our  rational  side  we  are  his  progeny,"  says 
Dr.  Adler:  But,  suppose  we  were  to  say 
that  if  our  remote  African  or  Australian 
savage  ancestors  did  not  possess  reason  as 


268  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

we  possess  it,  "it  cannot  be  said  that  on  our 
rational  side  we  are  their  progeny."  The 
child  in  the  cradle  does  not  possess  reason 
"as  we  do,"  any  more  than  does  the  anthro- 
poid ape,  but  the  beginnings  of  reason  are 
in  both.  Let  the  worm  climb  and  he  will 
overtake  man.  This  is  a  most  hopeful,  a 
most  beautiful  gospel.  Its  spirit  is  not 
one  of  isolation  and  exclusiveness  from  the 
rest  of  nature,  but  one  of  fellowship  and 
sympathy.  We  are  all — plants,  trees,  birds, 
bugs,  animals — all  members  of  one  family, 
children  at  various  ages  and  stages  of 
growth  of  the  same  great  mother, — Nature. 
We  quote  again: 

"When  I  ask  him  (Metchnikoff)  whence  do 
I  come,  he  points  to  the  simian  stage  which  we 
have  left  behind;  but  I  would  look  beyond  that 
stage  to  some  ultimate  fount  of  being,  to  which 
all  that  is  highest  in  me  and  in  the  world  around 
me  can  be  traced,  a  source  of  things  equal  to 
the  best  that  I  can  conceive." 

But  if  there  is  "some  ultimate  fount  of 
being,"  to  which  our  "highest"  nature  "can 
be  traced,"  whence  did  our  lower  nature 
come?  Is  Prof.  Adler  trying  to  say  God? 
We  do  not  object  to  the  word,  we  only  ask 
that  he  give  the  word  a  more  intelligible 


A  Liberal  Jew  on  Jesus  269 

meaning  than  has  yet  been  given.  If  God 
is  the  "ultimate  fount  of  being  to  which  all 
that  is  highest  in  us  can  be  traced,"  who  or 
what  is  the  ultimate  fount  to  which  all  that 
is  lowest  in  us  can  be  traced?  Let  us  have 
the  names  of  the  two  ultimate  founts  of 
being,  and  also  to  what  still  more  ultimate 
founts  these  founts  may  be  traced. 

In  our  opinion  Dr.  Adler  has  failed  to 
do  justice  to  Prof.  MetchnikofF.  It  is  no 
answer  to  the  Darwinian  Theory,  which  the 
Russian  scientist  accepts  in  earnest,  and  in 
all  its  fullness, — not  fractionally,  as  Adler 
seems  to  do — to  say  that  it  does  not  explain 
everything.  No  one  claims  that  it  does. 
Not  all  the  mystery  of  life  has  been  cleared. 
Evolution  has  offered  us  only  a  new  key, 
so  to  speak,  with  which  to  attempt  the  doors 
which  have  not  yielded  to  metaphysics. 
And  if  the  key  has  not  opened  all  the  doors, 
it  has  opened  many.  Prof.  Adler  seems  to 
think  that  the  doctrine  of  evolution  explains 
only  the  physical  descent  of  man;  for  the 
genesis  of  the  spiritual  man,  he  looks  for 
some  supernatural  "fount"  in  the  skies. 
Well,  that  is  not  science;  that  is  theology, 
and  Adler's  estimate  of  Jesus  is  just  as 
theological  as  liis  criticism  of  evolution. 


APPENDIX 


The  argument  in  this  volume  will  be  better  under- 
stood if  we  give  to  our  readers  the  comments  and 
criticisms  which  our  little  pamphlet,  Jesus  a  Myth, 
and  The  Mangasarian-Crapsey  Debate  on  the  His- 
toricity of  Jesus,*  called  forth  from  orthodox  and 
liberal  clergymen.  We  shall  present  these  together 
with  our  reply  as  they  appeared  on  the  Sunday 
Programs  of  the  Independent  Religious  Society. 

Criticism  is  welcome.  If  the  criticism  is  just,  it 
prevents  us  from  making  the  same  mistake  twice; 
if  it  is  unjust,  it  gives  us  an  opportunity  to  correct 
the  error  our  critic  has  fallen  into.  No  one's  knowl- 
edge is  perfect.  But  the  question  is,  does  a  teacher 
suppress  the  facts?  Does  he  insist  on  remaining 
ignorant  of  the  facts  ? 

FROM  THE  SUNDAY  PROGRAMS 
I 

Now  that  the  debate  on  one  of  the  most  vital 
questions  of  modern  religious  thought — The  Histor- 
icity of  Jesus — is  in  print,  a  few  further  reflections 
on  some  minor  points  in  Dr.  Crapsey's  argument 
may  add  to  the  value  of  the  published  copy. 

Rev.  Dr.  Crapsey  :  "Now,  I  say  this  is  the  great 
law  of  religious  variation,  that  in  almost  every  in- 
stance, indeed,  I  think,  in  every  single  instance  in 
history,  all  such  movements  begin  with  a  single  per- 
sonality."     (P.   5,   Mangasarian-Crapsey  Debate.) 

*Price,  25c.  Independent  Religious  Society,  Orchestra  Hall, 
Chicago. 

270 


Appendix  271 

Answer:  The  only  way  this  question  can  be 
settled  is  by  appealing  to  history.  Mithraism  is  a 
variant  religion,  which  at  one  time  spread  over  the 
Roman  Empire  and  came  near  outclassing  Chris- 
tianity. Yet,  Mithra,  represented  as  a  young  man, 
and  worshiped  as  a  god,  is  a  myth.  How,  then,  did 
Mithraism  arise? 

Religions,  as  well  as  their  variations,  appear  as 
new  branches  do  upon  an  old  tree.  The  new  branch 
is  quite  as  much  the  product  of  the  soil  and  climate 
as  the  parent  tree.  Like  Brahmanism,  Judaism, 
Shinto  and  the  Babylonian  and  Egyptian  Cults, 
which  had  no  single  founders,  Christianity  is  a  de- 
posit to  which  Hellenic,  Judaic  and  Latin  tendencies 
have  each  contributed  its  quota. 

But  the  popular  imagination  craves  a  Maker  for 
the  Universe,  a  founder"  for  Rome,  a  first  man  for 
the  human  race,  and  a  great  chief  as  the  starter  of 
the  tribe.  In  the  same  way  it  fancies  a  divine,  or 
semi-divine  being  as  the  author  of  its  credo. 

Because  Mohammed  is  historical,  it  does  not  fol- 
low that  Moses  is  also  historical.  That  argument 
would  prove  too  much. 

Rev.  Dr.  Crapsey:  "We  would  be  in  the  same 
position  that  the  astronomers  were  when  they  dis- 
covered the  great  planet  Uranus — from  their  knowl- 
edge of  the  movements  of  these  bodies  they  were 
convinced  that  these  perturbations  could  be  occa- 
sioned by  nothing  less  than  a  great  planet  lying 
outside  of  the  then  view  of  mankind."    (P.  6,  Ibid.) 

Answer  :  But  the  astronomers  did  not  rest  until 
they  converted  the  probability  oi  a  near-by  planet 
into  demonstration.    Jesus  is  still  a  probability. 


272  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

Rev.  Dr.  Crapsey:  "We  have  of  Jesus  a  very 
distinctly  outlined  history.  There  is  nothing  vague 
about  him."    (P.  12,  Ibid.) 

Answer:  But  in  the  same  sentence  the  doctor 
takes  all  this  back  by  adding:  "There  are  a  great 
many  things  in  his  history  that  are  not  historical." 
If  so,  then  we  do  not  possess  "a  very  distinctly  out- 
lined history,"  but  at  best  a  mixture  of  fact  and 
fiction. 

Rev.  Dr.  Crapsey:  "We  can  follow  Jesus'  his- 
tory from  the  time  that  he  entered  upon  his  public 
career  until  the  time  that  career  closed,  just  as 
easily  as  we  can  follow  Caesar,  etc."    (P.  12,  Ibid.) 

Answer:  How  long  was  "the  time  from  the 
opening  of  Jesus'  public  career  until  the  time  that 
it  closed?" — One  year! — according  to  the  three 
gospels.  It  sounds  quite  a  period  to  speak  of  "fol- 
lowing his  public  career"  from  beginning  to  end, 
especially  when  compared  with  Caesar's,  until  it 
is  remembered  that  the  entire  public  career  of  Jesus 
covers  the  space  of  only  one  year.  This  is  a  most 
decisive  argument  against  the  historicity  of  Jesus. 
With  the  exception  of  one  year,  his  whole  life  is 
hid  in  impenetrable  darkness.  We  know  nothing 
of  his  childhood,  nothing  of  his  old  age,  if  he  lived 
to  be  old,  and  of  his  youth,  we  know  just  enough 
to  fill  up  a  year.  Under  the  circumstances,  there 
is  no  comparison  between  the  public  career  of  a 
Caesar  or  a  Socrates  covering  from  fifty  to  seventy 
years  of  time,  and  that  of  a  Jesus  of  whose  life 
only  one  brief  year  is  thrown  upon  the  canvas. 

An  historical  Jesus  who  lived  only  a  year! 

Rev.  Dr.  Crapsey:     The  Christ  I  admit  to  b<* 


Appendix  273 

purely  mythological  ....  the  word  Christ,  you  know, 
means  the  anointed  one.  . .  .they  (the  Hebrews)  ex- 
pected the  coming  of  that  Christ.  ..  .But  that  is 
purely  a  mythical  title,     {The  Debate — P.  35.) 

Answer  :  Did  the  Hebrews  then  expect  the  com- 
ing of  a  title?  Were  they  looking  forward  to  seeing 
the  ancient  throne  of  David  restored  by  a  title?  By 
Messiah  or  Christ  the  Jews  did  not  mean  a  name, 
but  a  man — a  real  flesh  and  bone  savior,  anointed 
or  appointed  by  heaven. 

But  if  the  'Christ'  which  the  Hebrews  expected 
was  "purely  mythical,"  what  makes  the  same  'Christ' 
in  the  supposed  Tacitus  passage  historical?  The 
New  Testament  Jesus  is  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  apos- 
,  tie  John  speaks  of  those  "who  confess  not  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh" — mark  his  words 
— not  Christ,  but  Jesus  Christ.  The  apostle  does  not 
separate  the  two  names.  There  were  those,  then,  in 
the  early  church  who  denied  the  historicity,  not  of 
a  title, — for  what  meaning  would  there  be  in  deny- 
ing that  a  title  "is  come  in  the  flesh," — but  of  a  per- 
son, known  as  Jesus  Christ. 

And  what  could  the  doctor  mean  when  he  speaks 
of  a  title  being  "mythological?"  There  are  no 
mythological  titles.  Titles  are  words,  and  we  do  not 
speak  of  the  historicity  or  the  non-historicity  of 
words.  We  cannot  say  of  words  as  we  do  of 
men,  that  some  are  historical  and  others  are  myth- 
ical. William  Tell  is  a  myth — not  the  name,  but 
the  man  the  name  stands  for.  William  is  the  name 
of  many  real  people,  and  so  is  Tell.  There  were 
many  anointed  kings,  who  are  historical,  and  the 
question  is,  Is  Jesus  Christ — or  Jesus  the  Anointed 


274  The  Truth  About  Jesus 


— also  historical?  To  answer  that  Jesus  is  histor- 
ical, but  The  Anointed  is  not,  is  to  evade  the 
question. 

When  Mosheim  declares  that  "The  prevalent 
opinion  among  early  Christians  was  that  Christ  ex- 
isted in  appearance  only,"  he  could  not  have  meant 
by  'Christ'  only  a  title.  There  is  no  meaning  in 
saying  that  a  man's  title  "existed  in  appearance 
only?" 

We  do  not  speak  of  a  title  being  born,  or  cruci- 
fied; and  when  some  early  Christians  denied  that 
Jesus  Christ  was  ever  born  or  ever  crucified,  they 
had  in  mind  not  a  title  but  a  person. 

In  conclusion:  If  the  'Christ'  by  whom  the  He- 
brews meant,  not  a  mere  name,  but  a  man,  was 
"purely  mythological,"  as  the  reverend  debater 
plainly  admits  (see  pages  35,  36  of  The  Debate)  — 
that  is,  if  when  the  Hebrews  said :  "Christ  is  com- 
ing," they  were  under  the  influence  of  an  illusion, — 
why  may  not  the  Christians  when  they  say  that 
'Christ'  has  come,  be  also  under  the  influence  of  an 
illusion?  The  Hebrew  illusion  said,  Christ  was  com- 
ing; the  Christian  illusion  says,  Christ  has  come. 
The  Hebrews  had  no  evidence  that  'Christ'  was 
coming,  although  that  expectation  was  a  great  fac- 
tor in  their  religion;  and  the  Christians  have  no 
more  evidence  for  saying  'Christ'  has  come,  although 
that  belief  is  a  great  factor  in  their  religion. 

II 

The  minister  of  the  South  Congregational  Church, 
who  heard  the  debate,  has  publicly  called  your  lec- 
turer  an    "unscrupulous    sophist,"   who   "practices 


Appendix  275 

imposition  upon  a  popular  audience"  and  who  "put 
forth  sentence  after  sentence  which  every  scholar 
present  knew  to  be  a  perversion  of  the  facts  so  out- 
rageous as  to  be  laughable." 

As  one  of  the  leading  morning  papers  said,  the 
above  "is  not  a  reply  to  arguments  made  by  Mr. 
Mangasarian." 

Invited  by  several  people  to  prove  these  charges, 
the  Reverend  replies :  "In  the  absence  of  any  full 
report  of  what  he  (M.  M.  Mangasarian)  said,  or 
of  any  notes  taken  at  the  time,  I  am  unable  to 
furnish  you  with  quotations."  When  the  Reverend 
gentleman  w^as  addressing  the  public  his  memory 
v^^as  strong  enough  to  enable  him  to  say,  "sen- 
tence after  sentence  was  put  forth  by  Mr.  Man- 
gasarian which  every  scholar  present  knew  to  be 
a  perversion  of  the  facts."  But  when  called  upon 
to  mention  a  few  of  them,  his  memory  forsakes 
him.  Our  critic  is  not  careful  to  make  his  state- 
ments agree  with  the  fact. 

One  instance,  however,  he  is  able  to  remember 
which  "when  it  fell  upon  my  ears,"  he  writes,  "it 
struck  me  with  such  amazement,  that  it  completely 
drove  from  my  mind  a  series  of  most  astonishing 
statements  of  various  sorts  which  had  just  preceded 
it." 

We  refrain  from  commenting  on  the  excuse  given 
to  explain  so  significant  a  failure  of  memory.  The 
instance  referred  to  was  about  the  denial  of  some 
in  apostolic  times  that  "Jesus  Christ  is  come  in 
the  flesh."  But  as  Mr.  Mangasarian  had  hardly 
spoken  more  than  twenty  minutes  when  he  touched 
upon  this  point,  it  is  not  likely  that  it  could  have 


276  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

been  "preceded  by  a  series  of  most  astonishing 
statements  of  various  sorts." 

And  what  was  the  statement  which,  while  it  crip- 
pled his  memory,  it  did  not  moderate  his  zeal  ?  We 
will  let  him  present  it  himself;  "I  refer  to  the  use 
he  made  of  one  or  two  passages  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, mentioning  some  who  deny  'that  Jesus  Christ 
is  come  in  the  flesh.'  'So  that,'  he  went  on  to  say, 
'there  were  those  even  among  the  early  Christians 
themselves  who  denied  that  Jesus  had  come  in  the 
flesh.  Of  course,  they  were  cast  out  as  heretics.' 
Here  came  an  impressive  pause,  and  then  without 
further  explanation  or  qualification,  he  proceeded 
to  something  else." 

This  is  his  most  serious  complaint.  Does  it  justify 
hasty  language? 

St.  John  writes  of  those  who  "confessed  not  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh."  The  natural 
meaning  of  the  words  is  that  even  in  apostolic  times 
some  denied  the  flesh  and  bone  Jesus,  and  regarded 
him  as  an  idea  or  an  apparition — something  like 
the  Holy  Ghost.  All  church  historians  admit  the 
existence  of  sects  that  denied  the  New  Testament 
Jesus — ^the  Gnostics,  the  Essenes,  the  Ebionites,  the 
Marcionites,  the  Cerinthians,  etc. 

As  the  debate  is  now  in  print,  further  comment 
on  this  would  not  be  necessary. 

Incidents  like  the  above,  however,  should  change 
every  lukewarm  rationalist  into  a  devoted  soldier 
of  truth  and  honor. 

To  us,  more  important  than  anything  presented 
on  this  subject,  is  this  evidence  of  the  existence  of 
a  very  early  dispute  among  the  first  disciples  of 


Appendix  277 

Jesus  on  the  question  of  whether  he  was  real  or 
merely  an  apparition.  The  Apostle  John,  in  his 
epistle,  clearly  states  that  even  among  the  faithful 
there  were  those  who  confess  not  that  Jesus  Christ 
is  come  in  the  flesh.  This  is  very  important.  As 
early  as  John's  time,  if  he  is  the  writer  of  the  epis- 
tle, Jesus'  historicity  was  questioned. 

The  gospel  of  John  also  hints  at  the  existence 
in  the  primitive  church  of  Christians  who  did  not 
accept  the  reality  of  Jesus.  When  doubting  Thomas 
is  told  of  the  resurrection,  he  answers  that  he  must 
feel  the  prints  of  the  nails  with  his  fingers  before 
he  will  believe,  and  Jesus  not  only  grants  the  wishes 
of  this  skeptical  apostle,  but  he  also  eats  in  the  pres- 
ence of  them  all,  which  story  is  told  evidently  to 
silence  the  critics  who  maintained  that  Jesus  was 
only  a  spirit,  "the  Wisdom  of  God,"  an  emanation, 
a  light,  and  not  real  flesh  and  bones. 

Ill 

The  same  clergyman,  to  whom  a  copy  of  the  Man- 
gasarian-Crapsey  Debate  was  sent,  has  written  a 
five  page  criticism  of  it. 

The  strength  of  a  given  criticism  is  determined 
by  asking:  Does  it  in  any  way  impair  the  sound- 
ness of  the  argument  against  which  it  is  directed? 
Critics  have  discovered  mistakes  in  Darwin  and 
Haeckel,  but  are  these  mistakes  of  such  a  nature 
as  to  prove  fatal  to  the  theory  of  evolution  ? 

To  be  effective,  criticism  must  be  aimed  at  'the 
heart  of  an  argument.  A  man's  life  is  not  in  his 
hat,  which  could  be  knocked  off,  or  in  his  clothes — 
which  could  be  torn  in  places  by  his  assailant  with- 


278  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

out  in  the  least  weakening  his  opponent's  position. 
It  is  the  blow  that  disables  which  counts. 

To  charge  that  we  have  said  'Gospel,'  where  we 
should  have  said  'Epistle,'  or  'Trullum'  instead  of 
'TruUo';  that  it  was  not  Barnabas,  but  Nicholas 
who  denied  the  Gospel  Jesus,  and  that  there  were 
variations  of  this  denial,  does  not  at  all  disprove 
the  fact  that,  according  to  the  Christian  scriptures 
themselves,  among  the  apostolic  followers  there 
were  those  to  whom  Jesus  Christ  was  only  a  phan- 
tom. 

Milman,  the  Christian  historian,  states  that  the 
belief  about  Jesus  Christ  "adopted  by  almost  all 
the  Gnostic  sects,"  was  that  Jesus  Christ  was  hut  an 
apparent  human  being,  an  impassive  phantom, 
{History  of  Christianity.  Vol.  2,  P.  61).  Was 
ever  such  a  view  entertained  of  Caesar,  Socrates  or 
of  any  other  historical  character? 

On  page  28  of  The  Debate  we  say :  "The  Apostle 
John  complains  of  those ....  who  confess  not  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh."  To  this  the 
clergyman  replies: 

"The  Apostle  John  never  made  any  such  com- 
plaint. Critical  scholarship  is  pretty  well  agreed 
that  he  did  not  write  the  epistles  ascribed  to  him." 

We  have  a  lecture  on  "How  the  Bible  was  In- 
vented," and  this  clergyman's  admission  that  at  least 
parts  of  the  bible  are  invented  is  very  gratifying. 

In  a  former  communication,  this  same  clergy- 
man tried  to  prove  that  the  Apostle  John's  complaint 
does  not  at  all  imply  a  denial  of  the  historical  Jesus. 
In  his  recent  letter  he  denies  that  the  apostle  ever 
made  such  a  complaint. 


Appendicv  279 

John  did  not  write  the  epistles,  then,  which  the 
Christian  church  for  two  thousand  years,  and  at  a 
cost  of  millions  of  dollars,  and  at  the  greater  sac- 
rifice of  truth  and  progress  has  been  proclaiming 
to  the  world  as  the  work  of  the  inspired  John ! 

The  strenuous  efforts  to  get  around  this  terrible 
text  in  the  "Holy  Bible,"  show  what  a  decisive 
argument  it  is.  Every  exertion  to  meet  it  only 
tightens  the  text,  like  a  rope,  around  the  neck  of 
the  belief  in  the  historical  Jesus.  Our  desire,  in 
engaging  in  this  argument,  is  to  turn  the  thought 
and  love  of  the  world  from  a  mythical  being,  to 
humanity,  which  is  both  real  and  present. 

On  page  22  of  The  Debate,  we  say:  "St.  Paul 
tells  us  that  he  lived  in  Jerusalem  at  a  time  when 
Jesus  must  have  been  holding  the  attention  of  the 
city;  yet  he  never  met  him."  To  this  the  clergy- 
man replies: 

"Paul  tells  us  nothing  of  the  kind.  In  a  speech 
which  is  put  into  the  mouth  of  FauV'—put  into  the 
mouth  of  Paul!  Is  this  another  instance  of  forgery? 
John  did  not  write  the  epistles,  and  Paul's  speech 
in  the  Book  of  Acts  was  put  into  his  mouth !  Will 
the  clergyman  tell  us  which  parts  of  the  bible  are 
not  invented? 

Let  us  make  a  remark :  The  church  people  blame 
us  for  not  believing  in  the  trustworthiness  of  the 
bible ;  but  when  we  reply  that  if  the  bible  is  trust- 
worthy, then  Paul  must  have  been  in  Jerusalem 
with  Jesus,  and  John  admits  that  some  denied  the 
historical  Jesus,  we  are  blamed  for  not  knowing 
better  than  to  prove  anything  by  quoting  Paul  and 
John  as  if  everything  they  said  was  trustworthy. 


280  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

In  other  words,  only  those  passages  in  the  bible 
are  authentic  which  the  clergy  quote;  those  which 
the  rationalists  quote  are  spurious.  In  the  mean- 
time, the  authentic  as  well  as  the  spurious  passages 
together  compose  the  churches'  Word  of  God. 

IV 

In  a  letter  of  protest  to  Mr.  Mangasarian,  Rabbi 
Hirsch,  of  this  city,  asks:  "Was  it  right  for  you 
to  assume  that  I  was  correctly  reported  by  the 
News?"  After  stating  what  he  had  said  in  his  in- 
terview with  the  reporter,  the  Rabbi  continues :  "But 
said  I  to  the  reporter  all  these  possible  allusions  do 
not  prove  that  Jesus  existed  ....  You  see  in  reality 
I  agreed  with  you.  I  personally  believe  Jesus  lived. 
But  I  have  no  proof  for  this  beyond  my  feeling  that 
the  movement  with  which  the  name  is  associated 
could  even  for  Paul  not  have  taken  its  nomenclature 
without  a  personal  substratum.  But,  and  this  I  told 
the  reporter  also,  this  does  not  prove  that  the  Jesus 
of  the  Gospels  is  historical."  Rabbi  Hirsch  writes 
in  this  same  letter  that  he  did  not  say  Jesus  was 
mentioned  in  the  Rabbinical  Books.  The  News  re- 
ports the  Rabbi  as  saying,  "But  we  know  through 
the  Rabbinical  Books  that  Jesus  lived." 

A  committee  from  our  Society  waited  on  the 
editor  of  the  Daily  News  for  an  explanation.  The 
editor  promised  to  locate  the  responsibility  for  the 
contradiction. 

As  the  report  in  the  Neivs  was  allowed  to  stand 
for  four  days  without  correction,  and  as  Rabbi 
Hirsch  did  not  even  privately,  by  letter  or  by  phone, 
disclaim  responsibility  for  the  article,  to  Mr.  Man- 


Appendix  281 

gasarian,  the  latter  claims  he  was  justified  in  as- 
suming that  the  published  report  was  reliable.  But 
it  is  with  pleasure  that  the  Independent  Religious 
Society  gives  Rabbi  Hirsch  this  opportunity  to  ex- 
plain his  position.  We  hope  he  will  also  let  us 
know  whether  he  said  to  the  reporter:  "I  do  not 
believe  in  Mr.  Mangasarian's  argument  that  Chris- 
tianity has  inspired  massacres,  wars  and  inquisitions. 
It  is  a  stock  argument  and  not  to  the  point."  This 
is  extraordinary;  and  as  the  Rabbi  does  not  ques- 
tion the  statement,  we  infer  that  it  is  a  correct 
report  of  what  he  said.  Though  we  have  room  for 
only  one  quotation  from  the  Jewish-Christian  Scrip- 
tures, it  will  be  enough  to  show  the  relation  of  re- 
ligion to  persecution : 

"And  thou  shalt  consume  all  the  people  which 
the  Lord,  thy  God,  shall  deliver  thee;  thine  eye 
shall  have  no  pity  upon  them." 

Why  were  women  put  to  death  as  witches  ?  Why 
were  Quakers  hanged?  For  what  "economic  and 
political  reasons,"  which  the  Rabbi  thinks  are  re- 
sponsible for  persecution,  was  the  blind  Derby  girl 
who  doubted  the  Real  Presence,  burned  alive  at  the 
age  of  twenty-two? 

V 

The  Rev.  W.  E.  Barton,  of  Oak  Park,  is  one  of 
the  ablest  Congregational  ministers  in  the  West. 
He  has  recently  expressed  himself  on  the  Manga- 
sarian-Crapsey  Debate.  Let  us  hear  what  he  has 
to  say  on  the  historicity  of  Jesus. 

The  Reverend  gentleman  begins  by  an  uncom- 
promising denial  of  our  statements,  and  ends  by 


282  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

virtually  admitting  all  that  wc  contend  for.  This 
morning  we  will  write  of  his  denials;  next  Sun- 
day, of  his  admissions. 

"Mr.  Mangasarian,"  says  Dr.  Barton,  "has  not 
given  evidence  of  his  skill  as  a  logician  or  of  his 
accuracy  in  the  use  of  history."  Then  he  proceeds 
to  apologize,  in  a  way,  for  the  character  of  his  reply 
to  our  argument,  by  saying  that  "Mr.  Mangasarian's 
arguments,  fortunately,  do  not  require  to  be  taken 
very  seriously,  for  they  are  not  in  themselves  seri- 
ous." 

Notwithstanding  this  protest.  Dr.  Barton  pro- 
ceeds to  do  his  best  to  reply  to  our  position. 

In  The  Debate  we  call  attention  to  the  fact  that 
according  to  the  New  Testament,  Paul  was  in 
Jerusalem  when  Jesus  was  teaching  and  perform- 
ing his  miracles  there.  Yet  Paul  never  seems  to 
have  met  Jesus,  or  to  have  heard  of  his  teachings 
or  miracles.  To  this  Dr.  Barton  replies :  "We 
cannot  know  and  are  not  bound  to  explain  where 
Paul  was  on  the  few  occasions  when  Jesus  pub- 
licly visited  Jerusalem." 

The  above  reply,  we  are  compelled  to  say,  much 
to  our  regret,  is  not  even  honest.  Without  actually 
telling  any  untruths,  it  suggests  indirectly  two  false- 
hoods :  First,  that  Jesus  was  not  much  in  Jeru- 
salem— that  he  was  there  only  on  a  few  occasions; 
and  that,  therefore,  it  is  not  strange  that  Paul  did 
not  see  him  or  hear  of  his  preaching  or  miracles; 
and  second,  that  Paul  was  absent  from  the  city 
when  Jesus  was  there.  The  question  is  not  how 
often  Jesus  visited  Jerusalem,  but  how  conspicuous 
was  the  part  he  played  there.     He  may  have  vis- 


Appendix  283 

ited  Jerusalem  only  once  in  all  his  life,  yet  if  he 
preached  there  daily  in  the  synagogues;  if  he  per- 
formed great  miracles  there;  if  he  marched  through 
the  streets  followed  by  the  palm-waving  multitude 
shouting  Hosanna,  etc. ;  if  he  attacked  the  high- 
priest  and  the  pharisees  there,  to  which  latter  class 
Paul  belonged ;  and  if  he  was  arrested,  tried  and 
publicly  executed  there;  and  if  his  teaching  stirred 
the  city  from  center  to  circumference, — it  would 
not  be  honest  to  intimate  that  the  "few"  times  Jesus 
visited  Jerusalem,  Paul  was  engaged  elsewhere. 

The  Reverend  debater  attempts  to  belittle  the 
Jerusalem  career  of  Jesus,  by  suggesting  that  he 
was  not  there  much,  when  according  to  the  Gos- 
pels, it  was  in  that  city  that  his  ministry  began 
and  culminated. 

Again,  to  our  argument  that  Paul  never  refers 
to  any  of  the  teachings  of  Jesus,  the  Reverend  re- 
plies :  "Nor  is  it  of  consequence  that  Paul  seldom 
quotes  the  words  of  Jesus."  "Seldom" — would  im- 
ply that  Paul  quotes  Jesus  sometimes.  We  say 
Paul  gives  not  a  single  quotation  to  prove  that  he 
knew  of  a  teaching  Jesus.  He  had  heard  of  a 
crucified,  risen,  Christ — one  who  had  also  instituted 
a  bread  and  wine  supper,  but  of  Jesus  as  a  teacher 
and  of  his  teaching,  Paul  is  absolutely  ignorant. 

But  by  saying  "Paul  seldom  quotes  Jesus,"  Dr. 
Barton  tries  to  produce  the  impression  that  Paul 
quotes  Jesus,  though  not  very  often,  which  is  not 
true.  There  is  not  a  single  miracle,  parable  or 
moral  teaching  attributed  to  Jesus  in  the  Gospels 
of  which  Paul  seems  to  possess  any  knowledge 
whatever. 

Nor  is  it  true  that  it  is  of  no  consequence  that 


284  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

"Paul  seldom  quotes  the  words  of  Jesus."  For  it 
proves  that  the  Gospel  Jesus  was  unknown  to  Paul, 
and  that  he  was  created  at  a  later  date. 

Once  more;  we  say  that  the  only  Jesus  Paul 
knew  was  the  one  he  met  in  a  trance  on  his  way 
to  Damascus.  To  this  the  pastor  of  the  First  Con- 
gregational Church  of  Oak  Park  replies  in  the  same 
we-do-not-care-to-explain  style.  He  says :  "Nor  is 
it  of  consequence  that  Paul  values  comparatively 
lightly,  having  known  him  in  the  flesh." 

The  words  "Paul  valued  comparatively  lightly" 
are  as  misleading  as  the  words  "Paul  seldom  quotes 
Jesus."  Paul  never  quotes  Jesus'  teachings,  and  he 
never  met  Jesus  in  the  flesh.  The  clergyman's 
words,  however,  convey  the  impression  that  Paul 
knew  Jesus  in  the  flesh,  but  he  valued  that  knowl- 
edge "comparatively  lightly,"  that  is  to  say,  he  did 
not  think  much  of  it.  And  Dr.  Barton  is  one  of  the 
foremost  divines  of  the  country. 

And  now  about  his  admissions : 

VI 

I.  "The  Gospels,  by  whomever  written,"  says 
the  clergyman,  "are  reliable."  By  whomever  writ- 
ten! After  two  thousand  years,  it  is  still  uncertain 
to  whom  we  are  indebted  for  the  story  of  Jesus. 
What,  in  Dr.  Barton's  opinion,  could  have  influenced 
the  framers  of  the  life  of  Jesus  to  suppress  their 
identity?    And  why  does  not  the  church  instead  of 

ting  the  words,  "The  Gospel  according  to  Mat- 
thew or  John,"  which  is  not  true, — print,  "The  Gos- 
pel by  whomever  written"? 

II.  "At  the  very  least,  four  of  Paul's  epistles 


Appendix  285 

are  genuine,"  says  the  same  clergyman.  Only  four? 
Paul  has  thirteen  epistles  in  the  bible,  and  of  only 
four  of  them  is  Dr.  Barton  certain.  What  are  the 
remaining  nine  doing  in  the  Holy  Bible?  And 
which  'four'  does  the  clergyman  accept  as  doubt- 
lessly "genuine?"  Only  yesterday  all  thirteen  of 
Paul's  letters  were  infallible,  and  they  are  so  still 
wherever  no  questions  are  asked  about  them.  It 
is  only  where  there  is  intelligence  and  inquiry  that 
"four  of  them"  at  least  are  reliable.  As  honesty 
and  culture  increase,  the  number  of  inspired  epistles 
decreases.  What  the  Americans  are  too  enlightened 
to  accept,  the  church  sends  to  the  heathen. 

III.  "It  is  true  that  early  a  sect  grew  up  which 
....  held  that  Jesus  could  not  have  had  a  body  of 
carnal  flesh;  but  they  did  not  question  that  he  had 
really  lived."  According  to  Dr.  Barton,  these  early 
Christians  did  not  deny  that  Jesus  had  really  lived, — 
they  only  denied  that  Jesus  could  have  had  a  body 
of  carnal  flesh.  We  wonder  how  many  kinds  of 
flesh  there  are  according  to  Dr.  Barton.  Moreover, 
does  not  the  bible  teach  that  Jesus  was  tempted  in 
all  things,  and  was  a  man  of  like  passions,  as  our- 
selves? The  good  man  controls  his  appetites  and 
passions,  but  his  flesh  is  not  any  different  from  any- 
body else's.  If  Jesus  did  not  have  a  body  like 
ours,  then  he  did  not  exist  as  a  human  being.  Our 
point  is,  that  if  the  New  Testament  is  reliable,  in 
the  time  of  the  apostles  themselves,  the  Gnostics, 
an  influential  body  of  Christians,  denied  that  Jesus 
was  any  more  than  an  imaginary  existence.  "But," 
pleads  the  clergyman,  "these  sects  believed  that 
Jesus  was  real,  though  not  carnal  flesh."     What 


286  The  Truth  About  Jesus 

kind  of  flesh  was  he  then  ?  If  by  carnal  the  Gnostics 
meant  'sensual,'  then,  the  apostles  in  denouncing 
them  for  rejecting  a  carnal  Jesus,  must  have  held 
that  Jesus  was  carnal  or  sensual.  How  does  the 
Reverend  Barton  like  the  conclusion  to  which  his 
own  reasoning  leads  him? 

IV.  "It  is  true  that  there  were  literary  fictions 
in  the  age  following  the  apostles."  This  admission 
is  in  answer  to  the  charge  that  even  in  the  first  cen- 
turies the  Christians  were  compelled  to  resort  to 
forgery  to  prove  the  historicity  of  Jesus.  The  doc- 
tor admits  the  charge,  except  that  he  calls  it  by 
another  name.  The  difference  between  fiction  and 
forgery  is  this:  the  former  is,  what  it  claims  to  be; 
the  latter  is  a  lie  parading  as  a  truth.  Fiction  is 
honest  because  it  does  not  try  to  deceive.  Forgery 
is  dishonest  because  its  object  is  to  deceive.  If  the 
Gospel  was  a  novel,  no  one  would  object  to  its 
mythology,  but  pretending  to  be  historical,  it  must 
square  its  claims  with  the  facts,  or  be  branded  as 
a  forgery. 

V.  "We  may  not  have  the  precise  words  Jesus 
uttered ;  the  portrait  may  be  colored ; . . . .  tradition 
may  have  had  its  influence;  but  Jesus  was  real." 
A  most  remarkable  admission  from  a  clerical!  It 
concedes  all  that  higher  criticism  contends  for.  We 
are  not  sure  either  of  Jesus'  words  or  of  his  char- 
acter, intimates  the  Reverend  preacher.     Precisely. 

In  commenting  on  our  remark  that  in  the  eighth 
century  "Pope  Hadrian  called  upon  the  Christian 
world  to  think  of  Jesus  as  a  man,"  Dr.  Barton  re- 
plies with  considerable  temper:  "To  date  people's 
right  to  think  of  Jesus  as  a  man  from  that  decree 


Appendix  287 

is  not  to  be  characterized  by  any  polite  term."  Our 
neighbor,  in  the  first  place,  misquotes  us  in  his  haste. 
We  never  presumed  to  deny  anyone  the  right  to 
think  of  Jesus  what  he  pleased,  before  or  after  the 
eighth  century.  ( The  Debate,  p.  28.)  We  were  call- 
ing attention  to  Pope  Hadrian's  order  to  replace 
the  lamb  on  the  cross  by  the  figure  of  a  man.  But 
by  what  polite  language  is  the  conduct  of  the  Chris- 
tian church — which  to  this  day  prints  in  its  bibles 
"Translated  from  the  Original  Greek,"  when  no 
original  manuscripts  are  in  existence — to  be  charac- 
terized ? 

Dr.  Barton's  efforts  to  save  his  creed  remind  us 
of  the  Japanese  proverb:  "It  is  no  use  mending 
the  lid,  if  the  pot  be  broken." 

VII 

The  most  remarkable  clerical  effort  thus  far, 
which  The  Manga^arian-Crapscy  Debate  has  called 
forth,  is  that  of  the  Rev.  E.  V.  Shayler,  rector  of 
Grace  Episcopal  Church  of  Oak  Park. 

"In  answer  to  your  query,  which  I  received,  I 
beg  to  give  the  following  statement.  Facts,  not 
theories.  The  date  of  your  own  letter  1908  tells 
what?  1908  years  after  what?  The  looking  for- 
ward of  the  world  to  Him." 

Rev.  Shayler  has  an  original  way  of  proving  the 
historicity  of  Jesus.  Every  time  we  date  our  letters, 
suggests  the  clergyman,  we  prove  that  Jesus  lived. 
The  ancient  Greeks  reckoned  time  by  the  Olympiads, 
which  fact,  according  to  this  interesting  clergyman, 
ought  to  prove  that  the  Olympic  games  were  insti- 
tuted  by  the   God   Heracles  or  Hercules,   son   of 


288  The  Truth  About  Jesus 


Zeus ;  the  Roman  Chronology  began  with  the  build- 
ing of  Rome  by  Romulus,  which  by  the  same  rea- 
soning would  prove  that  Romulus  and  Remus,  born 
of  Mars,  and  nursed  by  a  she-wolf,  are  historical. 
Rev.  Shayler  has  forgotten  that  the  Christian 
'  era  was  not  introduced  into  Europe  until  the  sixth 
century,  and  Dionysius,  the  monkish  author  of  the 
era,  did  not  compute  time  from  the  birth  of  Jesus, 
but  from  the  day  on  which  the  Virgin  Mary  met 
an  angel  from  heaven.  This  date  prevailed  in 
many  countries  until  1745.  Would  the  date  on  a 
letter  prove  that  an  angel  appeared  to  Mary  and 
hailed  her  as  the  future  Mother  of  God  ?  Accord- 
ing to  this  clergyman,  scientists,  instead  of  study- 
ing the  crust  of  the  earth  and  making  geological 
investigations  to  ascertain  the  probable  age  of  the 
earth,  ought  to  look  at  the  date  in  the  margin  of 
the  bible  which  tells  exactly  the  world's  age. 

Rev.  Shayler  continues:  "The  places  where  he 
was  born,  labored  and  died  are  still  extant,  and  have 
no  value  apart  from  such  testimony." 

While  this  is  amusing,  we  are  going  to  deny  our- 
selves the  pleasure  of  laughing  at  it;  we  will  do 
our  best  to  give  it  a  serious  answer.  If  the  ex- 
istence of  such  a  country  as  Palestine  proves  that 
Jesus  is  real,  the  existence  of  Switzerland  must 
prove  that  William  Tell  is  historical;  and  the  ex- 
istence of  an  Athens  must  prove  that  Athene  and 
Apollo  really  lived;  and  from  the  fact  that  there  is 
an  England,  Rev.  Shayler  would  prove  that  Robin 
Hood  and  his  band  really  lived  in  1160. 

The  Reverend  knows  of  another  'fact'  which  he 
thinks  proves  Jesus  without  a  doubt: 


Appendix  289 

"A  line  of  apostles  and  bishops  coming  right 
down  from  him  by  his  appointment  to  Anderson  of 
Chicago,"  shows  that  Jesus  is  historical.  It  does, 
but  only  to  Episcopalians.  The  Catholics  and  the 
other  sects  do  not  believe  that  Anderson  is  a  de- 
scendant of  Jesus.  Did  the  priests  of  Baal  or  Mo- 
loch prove  that  these  beings  existed? 
The  Reverend  has  another  argument: 
"The  Christian  Church — when,  why  and  how  did 
it  begin  ?"  Which  Christian  church,  brother  ?  Your 
own  church  began  with  Henry  the  Eighth  in  1534, 
with  persecution  and  murder,  when  the  king,  his 
hands  wet  with  the  blood  of  his  own  wives  and  min- 
isters, made  himself  the  supreme  head  of  the  church 
in  England.  The  Methodist  church  began  with 
John  Wesley  not  much  over  a  hundred  years  ago; 
the  Presbyterian  church  began  with  John  Calvin 
who  burned  his  guest  on  a  slow  fire  in  Geneva  about 
three  hundred  years  ago;  and  the  Lutheran  church 
began  with  Martin  Luther  in  the  sixteenth  century, 
the  man  who  said  over  his  own  signature :  "It  was . 
I,  Martin  Luther,  who  slew  all  the  peasants  in  the 
Peasants  War,  for  I  commanded  them  to  be  slaugh- 
tered . . .  But  I  throw  the  responsibility  on  our  Lord 
God  who  instructed  me  to  give  this  order;"  and 
the  Roman  Catholic  church,  the  parent  of  the 
smaller  churches — all  chips  from  the  same  block — 
began  its  real  career  with  the  first  Christian  Em- 
peror, Constantine,  who  hanged  his  father-in-law, 
strangled  his  brother-in-law,  murdered  his  nephew, 
beheaded  his  eldest  son,  and  killed  his  wife.  Gibbon 
writes  of  Constantine  that  "the  same  year  of  his 
reign  in  which  he  convened  the  council  of  Nice 


290  The  Truth  About  Jesus 


was  polluted  by  the  execution,  or  rather  murder, 
of  his  eldest  son." 

But  our  clerical  neighbor  from  Oak  Park  has  one 
more  argument:  "Why  is  Sunday  observed  instead 
of  Saturday?"  Well,  why?  Sun-day  is  the  day  of 
the  Sun,  whose  glorious  existence  in  the  lovely 
heavens  over  our  heads  has  never  been  doubted; 
it  was  the  day  which  the  Pagans  dedicated  to  the 
Sun.  Sunday  existed  before  the  Jesus  story  was 
known, — the  anniversary  of  whose  supposed  resur- 
rection falls  in  March  one  year,  and  in  April  an- 
other. If  Jesus  rose  at  all,  he  rose  on  a  certain 
day,  and  the  apostles  must  have  known  the  date. 
Why  then  is  there  a  different  date  every  year? 

Rev.  Shayler  concludes:  "Haven't  time  to  go 
deeper  now,"  and  he  intimates  that  to  deny  his 
'facts'  is  either  to  be  a  fool  or  a  "liar."  We  will 
not  comment  on  this.  We  are  interested  in  argu- 
ments, not  in  epithets. 

VIII 

One  of  our  Sunday  programs,  the  other  day, 
found  its  way  into  a  church.  It  went  farther;  it 
made  its  appearance  in  the  pulpit. 

"In  my  hand  I  hold  the  notice  of  a  publication 
bearing  the  title  Is  Jesus  a  Myth?"  said  Dr.  Boyle. 
"This,  too,  just  as  though  Paul  never  bore  testi- 
mony." 

This  gave  the  clergyman  a  splendid  opportunity 
to  present  in  clear  and  convincing  form  the  evi- 
dence for  the  reality  of  Jesus.  But  one  thing  pre- 
vented him: — the  lack  of  evidence. 

Therefore,  after  announcing  the  subject,  he  dis- 


Appendix  291 

missed  it,  by  remarking  that  Paul's  testimony  was 
enough. 

The  Rev.  Morton  Culver  Hartzell,  in  a  letter, 
offers  the  same  argument.  "Let  Mr.  Mangasarian 
first  disprove  Paul,"  he  writes.  The  argument  in 
a  nutshell  is  this :  Jesus  is  historical  because  he  is 
guaranteed  by  Paul. 

But  who  guarantees  Paul? 

Aside  from  the  fact  that  the  Jesus  of  Paul  is  es- 
sentially a  different  Jesus  from  the  gospel  Jesus 
there  still  remains  the  question,  Who  is  Paul?  Let 
us  see  how  much  the  church  scholars  themselves 
know  about  Paul : 

"The  place  and  manner  and  occasion  of  his  death 
are  not  less  uncertain  than  the  facts  of  his  later 
life  .  .  .  The  chronology  of  the  rest  of  his  life  is 
as  uncertain  .  .  .  We  have  no  means  of  knowing 
when  he  was  bom,  or  how  long  he  lived,  or  at  what 
dates  the  several  events  of  his  life  took  place." 

Referring  to  the  epistles  of  Paul,  the  same  author- 
ity says:  "The  chief  of  these  preliminary  questions 
is  the  genuineness  of  the  epistles  bearing  Paul's 
name,  which  if  they  he  his" — yes,  IF — 

The  Christian  scholar  whose  article  on  Paul  is 
printed  in  the  Britannica,  and  from  which  we  are 
now  quoting,  gives  further  expression  to  this  un- 
certainty by  adding  that  certain  of  Paul's  epistles 
"have  given  rise  to  disputes  which  cannot  easily 
be  settled  in  the  absence  of  collateral  evidence.  .  . 
The  pastoral  epistles  .  .  .  have  given  rise  to  still 
graver  questions,  and  are  probably  even  less  de- 
fensible." 

Let  the  reader  remember  that  the  above  is  not 


292  The  Truth  About  Jesus 


from  a  rationalist,  but  from  the  Rev.  Edwin  Hatch, 
D.  D.,  Vice-Principal,  St.  Mary  Hall,  Oxford,  Eng- 
land. 

Were  we  disposed  to  quote  rationalist  authorities, 
the  argument  against  Paul  would  be  far  more  de- 
cisive. But  we  are  satisfied  to  rest  the  case  on 
orthodox  admissions  alone. 

The  strongest  argument  then  of  clergymen  who 
have  attempted  an  answer  to  our  position  is  some- 
thing like  this : 

Jesus  is  historical  because  a  man  by  the  name  of 
Paul  says  so,  though  we  do  not  know  much  about 
Paul. 

It  is  just  such  evidence  as  the  above  that  led 
Prof.  Goldwin  Smith  to  exclaim :  "J^sus  has  flown. 
I  believe  the  legend  of  Jesus  was  made  by  many 
minds  working  under  a  great  religious  impulse — 
one  man  adding  a  parable,  another  an  exhortation, 
another  a  miracle  story;" — and  George  Eliot  to 
write:  "The  materials  for  a  real  life  of  Christ  do 
not  exist." 

In  the  effort  to  untie  the  Jesus-knot  by  Paul,  the 
church  has  increased  the  number  of  knots  to  two. 
In  other  words,  the  church  has  proceeded  on  the 
theory  that  two  uncertainties  make  a  certainty. 

We  promised  to  square  also  with  the  facts  of 
history  our  statement  that  the  chief  concern  of  the 
church,  Jewish,  Christian,  or  Mohammedan,  is  not 
righteousness,  but  orthodoxy. 

IX 

Speaking  in  this  city,  Rev.  W.  H.  Wray  Boyle  of 
Lake  Forest,  declared  that  unbelief  was  responsible 


Appendix  293 

for  the  worst  crimes  in  history.    He  mentioned  the 
placing. 

— "of  a  nude  woman  on  a  pedestal  in  the  city 

of  Paris. 
— "the  assassination  of  William  McKinley. 
— "The  same  unbelief  "sent  a  murderer  down 
the  isle  of  a  church  in  Denver  to  pluck  the 
symbol  of  the  sacrament  from  the  hands  of 
a  priest  and  slay  him  at  the  altar." 
The  story  of  a  "nude  woman,"  etc.,  is  pure  fiction, 
and  that  the  two  murders  were  caused  by  unbelief 
is  mere  assumption  .  To  help  his  creed,  the  preacher 
resorts  to  fable.     We  shall  prove  our  position  by 
quoting  facts: 

I.  HYPATIA*  was  dragged  into  a  Christian 
church  by  monks  in  Alexandria,  and  before  the 
altar  she  was  stripped  of  her  clothing  and  cut  in 
pieces  with  oyster  shells,  and  murdered.  Her  in- 
nocent blood  stained  the  hands  of  the  clergy,  who 
also  handle  the  Holy  Sacraments.  She  was  mur- 
dered not  by  a  crazed  individual  but  by  the  orders 
of  the  bishop  of  Alexandria.  How  does  the  true 
story  of  Hypatia  compare  with  the  fable  of  "a  nude 
woman  placed  on  a  pedestal  in  the  city  of  Paris?" 
The  Reverend  must  answer,  or  never  tell  an  un- 
truth again. 

Hypatia  was  murdered  in  church,  and  by  the 
clergy,  because  she  was  not  orthodox. 

n.  POLTROT,  the  Protestant,  in  the  i6th  cen- 
tury assassinated  Francois,  the  Catholic  duke  of 
Guise,  in  France,  and  the  leaders  of  the  church, 
instead    of   disclaiming   responsibility   for   the   act, 

*See  Author's,  The  Martyrdom  of  Hypatia. 


294  The  Truth  About  Jesus 


publicly  praised  the  assassin,  and  Theodore  Beza, 
the  colleague  of  Calvin,  promised  him  a  crown  in 
heaven.  {De  I'etat  etc.  P.  82.  Quoted  by  Jules 
Simon.) 

III.  JAMES  CLEMENT,  a  Catholic,  assassi- 
nated Henry  III.  For  this  act  the  clergy  placed  his 
portrait  on  the  altar  in  the  churches  between  two 
great  lighted  candle-sticks.  Because  he  had  killed 
a  heretic  prince,  the  Catholics  presented  the  assas- 
sin's mother  with  a  purse.  {Esprit  de  la  Ligue  i. 
III.  P.  14.) 

If  it  was  unbelief  that  inspired  the  murder  of 
McKinley,  what  inspired  the  assassins  of  Hypatia 
and  Henry  III? 

We  read  in  the  Bible  that  Gen.  Sisera,  a  heathen, 
having  lost  a  battle,  begged  for  shelter  at  the  tent 
of  Jael,  a  friendly  woman,  but  of  the  Bible  faith. 
Jael  assured  the  unfortunate  stranger  that  he  was 
safe  in  her  tent.  The  tired  warrior  fell  asleep  from 
great  weariness.  Then  Jael  picked  a  tent-peg  and 
with  a  hammer  in  her  hand  "walked  softly  unto 
him,  and  smote  the  nail  into  his  temples,  and 
fastened  it  into  the  ground  ...  So  he  died." 

The  BIBLE  calls  this  assassin  "blessed  above 
women."  (Judge  IV.  18,  etc.)  She  had  killed  a 
heretic. 

In  each  of  the  instances  given  above,  the  assassin 
is  honored  because  he  committed  murder  in  the  in- 
terest of  the  faith.  We  ask  this  clergyman  and  his 
colleagues  who  are  only  too  anxious  to  charge  every 
act  of  violence  to  unbelief  in  their  creeds — What 
about  the  crimes  of  believers? 


Appendix  295 

Without  comment  we  recommend  the  following 
text  to  their  attention : 

"Thou  hypocrite,  first  cast  out  the  beam  out  of 
thine  own  eye ;  and  then  shalt  thou  see  clearly  to 
cast  out  the  mote  out  of  thy  brother's  eye."  {Mat- 
thew VII,  5.) 


Date  Due 

&«w«^«*^ 

0€^L4Hb«^ 

i 

1 

f) 

PRINTED 

IN  IJ.  S.  A. 

PUBIiICATZONS  OF  M.  as.  KAKaASASZAN. 

Address,   922    Lakeside    Place,   Chicago. 

The  Bible  Umveiled.     Cloth  Bound,  270  Pages.    Price  $1.25.    Post- 
age 8c. 
The  Story  of  My  Mind,  ok  How  I  Became  a  Rationalist.     Pa- 
per 50c. 
A  New  Catechism.    Fifth  Edition,  with  Portrait  of  Author,  |1.00. 
The  Truth  About  Jesus.     Was  He  a  Myth?     Illustrated.     Price, 

paper  50c. 
Mangasarian-Crapsey   Debate  on  the  Historicity  of  Jesus.     25c. 
Pearls.    Brave  Thoughts  from  Brave  Minds.     Paper,  25c. 
I^ECTTT&ES. — lOo  a  copy  by  mail. 
St.  Francis,  the  Second  Christ. 
Marcus  Aurelius. 

Ships  that  Sink  in  the  Night,  or  God  and  the  Titanic. 
What  Has  Christ  Done  for  the  World? 
Lyman  Abbott  on   Immortality. 
Voltaire  in  Hades. 
The  Gospel  of  Sport — What  Shall  I  Do  to  Be  Saved? 

PlayI  ^ 

A  Poet's  Philosophy  of  Happiness — Omar  Khayyam. 
-11.     A  Rationalist  in  Rome.     In  Three  Parts. 
Jew  and  Christian — According  to  Shakespeare. 
ind  14.     Christian  Science  and  Common  Sense. 
A  Message  from  Abroad. 
The  First  Modern   Man. 

The  Monk  and  the  Woman  in  the  Garden  of  Allah. 
The    High    Cost    of    Living    and    the    Higher    Cost    of 

Superstition. 
The  Debate  Between   Three  Clergymen   and  a  Ration- 
alist. 
Rationalism  and  Crime. 
Woman  and  Crime. 
Was  Jesus  a  Socialist? 

The  Catholic  Church  and  the  Socialist  Party. 
What  Is  the  Trouble  with  the  World? 

Volnme  2. 
Who  Made  the  Gods? 

Marriage  and  Divorce,  According  to  Rationalism. 
The  American  Girl. 
The  Catholic  Church  in  Politics. 
Christian  and  Turk. 

The  Gospel  According  to  Berinard  Shaw. 
and  8.     Morality  Without  God. 
A  Letter  to  My  Flock. 

A  Missionary  Convert.  , 

The  Ex-Priest  in  Paris. 
12  and  13.     Joan  of  Arc. 
Quo  Vadis. 
No.  15.     Damaged  Goods. 
No.  16.     Books  and  the  Social  Agitation. 
No.  17.     The  Jesuits  and  Their  Morals. 
God  and  Man,  or  The  First  Official  Call  to  Prayer. 
Rome-Rule  in  Ireland,  Postlude  Francisco  Ferrer. 
The  Martyrdom  of  Hypatia. 
The  Kingdom  of  God  in  Geneva  Under  Calvin. 
The  Religion  of  Washington,  Jefferson  and  Franklin. 
What  Was  the  Religion  of  Shakespeare. 
How  the  Bible  Was  Invented. 

How  Freedom  of  Thought  Was  Born.     In  three  chapters. 
What  Is  an   Infidel? 
Bryan's  Prince  of  Peace. 

The  Montessori  Method  op  Child  Training. 
What  Is  an  Educated  Person? 


No. 

1. 

No. 

2. 

No. 

3 

No. 

4. 

No. 

5. 

No. 

6. 

No. 

7. 

No. 

8. 

No. 

9.- 

No. 

12. 

No. 

13 

No. 

15. 

No. 

16. 

No. 

17. 

No. 

18. 

No. 

19. 

No. 

20. 

No. 

21. 

No. 

22. 

No. 

23. 

No. 

24. 

No. 

1. 

No. 

2. 

No. 

3 

No. 

4. 

No. 

5 

No. 

6 

No. 

7 

No. 

9. 

No. 

10. 

No. 

11. 

No. 

12 

No. 

14. 

